THE EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE

TO TELEVISION VIOLENCE ON

ADOLESCENTS’ VERBAL AGGRESSION

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

C. EDWARD WOTRINVG

1971

Michigan State

University

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO TELEVISION VIOLENCE

ON ADOLESCENTS' VERBAL AGGRESSION

’ presented by

C. Edward Hotring

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree inJhmunicflTon

L

7 .

Ebb; (I? IMitt/1,111 ./4' £44 <2

Major professor

Date 9'/7' 71

0-7839

'r“7‘—- I. ”—97- “4—,

.r e,

LIBRARY 1

tu‘»

#0

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.

To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

6/01 C'JCIFlClDatODUGpGS-p. 15 _

THE EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO TELEVISION VIOLENCE

ON ADOLESCENTS' VERBAL AGGRESSION

By

C. Edward Notring

This research examined the effects of television violence on the

verbally aggressive behavior of adolescent boys from families of vary-

ing socioeconomic status. Threeflt91gyl§19g_treatments_were~compared;-

violent with consequences to the victim, violence without consequences

to the victim, and nonviolence. Two levels of socioeconomic status

were compared: lower and middle. Five indices of verbal aggression,

along with one index of physical aggression, were developed and used

as dependent measures in an attempt to determine the relationship

between verbal and physical aggression. Subjects were 234 seventh,

eighth, and ninth grade boys from three schools in middle and lower

socioeconomic status neighborhoods.

Overall comparisons of exposure to television violence with and

without consequences to each other and to nonviolent television ex-

posure failed to show any differences in terms of either physical or

verbal aggression of adolescent boys. Boys from families of lower

socioeconomic status tended to demonstrate more intense verbal aggres-

sion than boys from families of middle socioeconomic status. Violence

with consequences seems to raise inhibitions of lower socioeconomic

status boys towards verbal and physical aggression similarily, which

provides some support to the theoretic contention that similar in-

hibitions control both verbal and physical aggression. 0f the five

indices developed to measure verbal aggression, only the verbal aggres-

sion situation index seemed to reliably tap this dimension.

THE EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO TELEVISION VIOLENCE

ON ADOLESCENTS' VERBAL AGGRESSION

By

C. Edward Notring

A THESIS

Submitted to

Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Communication

1971

Accepted by the faculty of the Department of

Communication, College of Communication Arts, Michigan

State University, in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree.

Director of Thesis

Guidance Committee: Chairman

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A dissertation is not written by the author alone. It is com-

pleted with the advice, encouragement, and support of many people.

Dr. Erwin Bettinghaus, Dr. Bradley S. Greenberg, Dr. Verling C.

Troldahl, Dr. Vincent Farace, Dr. Gerald R. Miller, Dr. Clyde

Morris, Dr. Lawrence Messé: Dr. Thomas F. Gordon, Dr. John S.

Mickelson, and Judy Nims were those essential people. I would

like to thank them for their common support.

In particular, it was Dr. Bettinghaus whose door was always

open and whose guidance was always there in moments of doubt.

Dr. Bradley S. Greenberg provided me with experience, encourage-

ment, financial support, and the responsibilities which are given only

through trust.

I Dr. Thomas F. Gordon was a true friend and colleague. He helped

me more than he will ever know.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ......................... vi

LIST OF APPENDICES ....................... vii

Chapter Page

I RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES ................ I

Introduction ..................... 1

Reasons for the Study ................ l

Rationale ...................... 4

Socioeconomic Status ................. 16

II METHODS ......................... 20

The Sample ...................... 20

Variables and Operationalizations .......... 20

Independent Variables ................ 20

Dependent Variable .................. 21

Manipulation Check‘ .................. 33

Relationship Among the Indices ............ 37

Extra Control Group ................. 37

Procedures ...................... 37

Design ........................ 40

Analytic Procedures ................. 40

III RESULTS ......................... 42

Order Effects .................... 42

Comparison Between the No-Treatment and

Nonviolent Television Treatment Groups ...... 47

Television Treatment Effects ............. 47

Socioeconomic Status Differences ........... 50

Interaction Effects ................. 55

iv

Table of Contents (cont'd.)

Chapter Page

IV DISCUSSION ....................... 57

Television Treatment Differences .......... 57

Socioeconomic Status Differences .......... 62

Television Treatment - Socioeconomic

Status Interactions ............... 64

Summary ....................... 66

Research Extensions ................. 67

BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................... 69

APPENDIX I ........................... 73

APPENDIX II ........................... 75

Table

#00“)

01

10

ll

12

l3

T4

15

l6

17

LIST OF TABLES

VERBAL AGGRESSION SITUATION ITEMS ...........

VERBAL AGGRESSION SITUATION ITEMS - INTERCORRELATIONS .

WORD ASSOCIATION STIMULI . . . . ...........

INTERCORRELATIONS AND FACTOR LOADINGS OF NINE WORD

ASSOCIATION STIMULI . . ..............

WORD RATING INTERCORRELATIONS . . . . . ........

RANGES, MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND PERCENT

MISSING DATA FOR WORD RATING INDICES ........

WILLINGNESS TO USE PHYSICAL AGGRESSION ITEMS AND ITEM

INTERCORRELATIONS .................

PHYSICAL AND VERBAL AGGRESSION INTERCORRELATIONS AND

FACTOR LOADINGS ..................

INTERCORRELATIONS AND FACTOR LOADINGS OF SIX INDICES

OVERALL ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF VERBAL AGGRESSION . . . .

OVERALL ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PHYSICAL AGGRESSION . . .

CELL MEANS FOR OPEN - CLOSED ORDER ..........

CELL MEANS FOR PHYSICAL - VERBAL ORDER ........

ANALYSES OF VARIANCE (NONVIOLENCE - NO TREATMENT X

SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS) ...............

ANALYSES OF VARIANCE (VIOLENCE WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES -

NONVIOLENCE X SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS) ........ -

ANALYSES OF VARIANCE (VIOLENCE WITH CONSEQUENCES -

NONVIOLENCE X SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS) ........

CELL MEANS AND FREQUENCIES FOR VERBAL AGGRESSION

SITUATION INDEX, WILLINGNESS TO USE PHYSICAL

AGGRESSION INDEX, AND EXCITED-CALM WORD

RATING INDEX ....................

vi

Page

23

25

27

29

31

33

34

54

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

I ANALYSES OF VARIANCE (VIOLENCE WITH AND WITHOUT 73

CONSEQUENCES - NONVIOLENCE X SOCIOECONOMIC

STATUS) FOR VERBAL AGGRESSION SITUATION

INDEX AND WILLINGNESS TO USE PHYSICAL

AGGRESSION INDEX ...............

II INSTRUMENT ..... . ............. 75

vii

CHAPTER I

RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES '

Introduction

This research deals with the relationship between verbal and

physical aggression. The study has two purposes:

1. To examine the effects of exposure to physical aggression

via television programming on the verbally aggressive

behavior of adolescents.

2. To analyze the effects of family background in terms of:

a) The intensity of verbally aggressive behavior produced

by adolescents from families of varying socioeconomic

status (SES).

b) The possible interaction between socioeconomic status

and exposure to televised physical aggression which

may affect intensity of post-viewing verbal aggression.

Reasons for the study

The examination of the effects of adolescents' exposure to tele-

vised physical aggression has both practical and theoretical implications.

0n the more practical side, there has been increasing number of

studies concerned with the long- and short-term effects of exposure

to televised physical aggression on children's and adolescents' atti—

tudes, values, and behaviors; i.e., researchers have been interested

in examination of television as a socialization agent. Research of

this nature seems both relevant and important given the amount of

2

time children and adolescents spend watching television, and the

amount of physical aggression presented to them on television.

Schramm, Lyle,_and Parker (1961) found that the North American

adolescent (grades 6 and 10) spends about one-sixth of his waking hours

watching television. This is almost as much time as he spends in

school, and more time than he spends doing any other activity except I

sleep and play. In a more recent study of viewing behaviors, Greenberg

F.

and Dominick (1969) found that low-income Black adolescents viewed“

'EETEQIETSSWRBIe than 6 hours a day, low—income White adolescents

watched four and a half hadrs, and the middle-class White adolescents,

less than four hours.

Concerning what is presented on television, several content

analyses of television programming have been undertaken. ~Violence

here will be used synonomously with physical 329C§§§I9"’ and refers

to "the overt expression of physical force compelling action against

one's will on pain of being hurt or killed." (Gerbner, 1970, pg. 5.)

The Christian Science Monitor (1968) reported that in 85 1/2 hours of

prime time and Saturday programming, 84 killings took place. During

the hours of 7:30 to 9 p.m., when about 27 million children from age

2 to 17 were watching, violent incidents occurred every 16 minutes,

and a murder or killing took place every 35 minutes. Gerbner (1970)

found that violence occurred in eight out of ten shows, and the

frequency of violent acts was about eight per hour. In the entire

week content analyzed, 134 people were injured as a result of violence,

and 46 people were killed. Stempel (1969) found that during one entire

week, of 202 problems presented on network programs, almost 60% were

3

solved by violent tactics; about one-third were solved non-violently

and the remainder were unsolved.

Thus, the adolescent observes a substantial amount of violence

on television, much more than he will ever see in the rest of his

environment (Singer, 1971). The attempt to determine the effects

‘TdfwthisTexposure on youngsters thus seem justified. However, this

research has not incorporated verbal aggression as a main dependent

variable. Verbal aggression is a much more frequent aggressive

response than physical aggression in this society, and it is central

to the understanding of communication as it relates to aggression and

conflict. This study analyzes the short-term effects of various tele-

vision content manipulations on adolescents' verbal aggression.

0n the more theoretical side, there_j§_a_substantia1 amount of

literature than ingigdtesfiexposure to television violence is related I/’ Mew-r- . ,. >7 . , . .. ,~..u—-v~-n-~ v-w-r Ava-u—

aggression is related to physical aggression. This study explores the

possibility of a third relationship between exposure to television

violence as it is related to verbal aggression. In so doing, this

study provides a possible theoretical explanation for all three

relationships.

Research on effects of exposure to television violence has deter]/

mined that socioeconomic status (SES) may be an important influencer In

of the extent to which television violence effects the viewer. Be-

cause of these findings, this study will examine the effects of socio-

economic status (SES) on the relationship between exposure to television1

I

I

violence and verbal aggression. Also, little data exist concerning

4

verbally aggressive behavior of adolescents from families of varying

socioeconomic status (SES). This study provides data of this nature.

Rationale

I Several experimental studies have shown that a positive relation-

ship exists between verbal and physical aggression. Verbal aggression

in these studies is defined in two ways as derived from two distinct

types of conceptualizations.

One conceptualization was developed in verbal conditioning experi-

ments: Beech and Graham (1967), Buss (1961, 1962), Buss and Durkee

(1958), Beer and Buss (1962), Loew (l967), Simpson and Craig (1967),

Zedek (1959), and Zucherman (1955). Generally, verbal aggression is

defined in these studies as the subject's use of words with "aggressive"

denotations. Zedek, for example, characterizes these words as denoting

aggressive actions (punch), feelings (hate), objects (gun), situations

(war), results of aggression (destruction), and aggressive people

(Hitler). "Aggression" itself normally refers to the directing or

delivering of noxious stimuli towards another organism (Buss, 1961;

Berkowitz, 1962). The intensity of verbal aggression within this

conceptualization refers to the intensity of the aggression denoted

by the words uSed by the subject, and is defined and scaled by sub-

jects' ratings of the words on a dimension of aggressiveness (Buss,

1961; Simpson and Craig, 1967).

The second conceptualization of verbal aggression, certainly not

exclusive from the first, was developed mainly in frustration-aggression

experiments: e.g., Buss (1961), DeCharms and Wilkens (1963), Geen and

5

Berkowitz (l967), Haney (1971), McClelland and Apicella (1945), Mosher

(1968), Mosher and Proenza (1968), and Weiss and Fine (1956). Gener-

ally, verbal aggression is conceptualized here as personal insults,

derogatory remarks, and/or threats, which are directed towards another

individual. Buss, for example, defines verbal aggression as “a vocal

response that delivers noxious stimuli to another organism" (1961,

pg. 6), the noxious stimuli being rejection and/or threat. Intensity

is determined by the experimenter through the construction of cate-

gories which vary in the intensity of rejection and threat (Buss,

1961; Gottschalk, Gleser, and Springer, 1963; Mosher, 1968; and

Mosher and Proenza, 1968). Subjects' statements are given an inten-

sity value based on the category into which each statement can be

placed.

Because these conceptualizations to some extent overlap, and

because the relationship between physical and verbal aggression to

be discussed has been found using both conceptualizations, this study

will define and operationalize verbal aggression based on both con-

ceptualizations.

Incorporating the above conceptualizations, then, the following

studies suggest a positive relationship between physical and verbal

aggression. Two studies show that subjects who differ on a dimension

of physical aggression also differ in their use of aggressive words.

Simpson and Craig (1967) demonstrated that aggressive college students

exceeded non-aggressive students in intensity of aggressive content of

associations to homonyms which could have both an aggressive or

unaggressive meaning. Subjects were categorized as aggressive or

6

non-aggressive on the basis of scores on subscales of the Buss-Durkee

Hostility Inventory (Buss and Durkee, 1957).1 Beech and Graham (1967)

were able to separate aggressive adolescents, ages 12-15, from adoles-

cents average or below in aggression on the basis of aggressive sentence

completions. Subjects were categorized as aggressive, average, or

below average in aggressiveness on the basis of teacher's ratings.1

Two other studies demonstrate that eliciting and reinfbrcing

verbal aggression, both in terms of aggressive word use and deroga-

tory remarks, leads to a concommitant increase in intensity of physically

aggressive behavior under conditions of no instigation or frustration.

Loew (1967) demonstrated that college males who were reinfbrced for

selecting and repeating aggressive words from pairs of aggressive and

neutral words subsequently shocked an accomplice more intensely than

subjects reinforced for choosing the neutral words. Lovaas (1961)

found that children ages 3 to 7 who were reinforced for directing!

derogatory statements towards a doll were subsequently more physically

aggressive towards another doll than similar children reinfbrced for

directing non-aggressive verbal statements towards the doll.

These studies, then, indicate that for various age levels and

under various experimental conditions, there seems to be a positive

relationship between the verbal and physical response classes. The

latter two studies (Lovaas and Loew) are of particular interest

because these were able to manipulate physical aggression (motor

activity) via reinforcement of verbal aggression (internal mediational

events) in the absence of instigation or frustration.

1Though verbal aggressiveness formed part of the Buss-Durkee

scales, and undoubtedly was considered by teachers in their ratings,

physical aggression received the major emphasis for both catagorizations.

7

One possible explanation for this positive relationship is that

similar inhibitions have been conditioned for both response classes,

physical and verbal, although to a different extent for each. Lovaas

(1961) suggests that the two response classes may have similar or

common reinforcing and/or punishing stimuli. This he points out

seems likely since historically the two classes frequently occur

together for an individual, e.g., a threat followed by being hit,

being scolded and hit, name calling followed by fighting, being simi-

larily scolded and/or hit for physically and verbally aggressive

behavior. Since they frequently occur together, the reinforcing

or punishing stimuli present for one class of responses generalize

to the other, and vice versa. Given similar reinforcers, operating

upon one class of responses may change the characteristics of response

fer these stimuli by the other class (e.g., sensitization of, or

satiation fer, the common reinfbrcer). Since in this society both

verbal and physical aggression are usually unacceptable behaviors,

the latter being generally more unacceptable, a child is punished

more than he is reinforced for both behaviors. It would thus seem likely

that similar inhibitions have been conditioned for both response classes,

due to punishment for both types of behavior, and more so for the physi-

cally aggressive response class than the verbally aggressive response

class. Thus, the occurrence of the verbal aggressive response, which

is reinfbrced or not punished, may affect the occurrence of physically

aggressive behavior in two ways:

1) the reinforcement generalizes from the verbal to the

physical response class,

8

2) some extinction of the conditioned aversive stimuli

associated with verbal aggression generalizes to the

physically aggressive response class, reducing the

amount of inhibitions an individual has towards per-

forming that response.

If these two response classes have similar inhibitions,,then

affecting_inhibitions towards either response class should similarily

affect the other, and this relationship should hold under a variety

of contexts in which inhibitions for either are affected.

One such context in which inhibitions towards physical aggression

seem to be affected is that of exposure to mediated violence, e.g.,

television. Two arguments will be presented in support of this

assertion. First, it is argued that exposure to television violence

generally stimulates post-viewing aggression and under certain con-

ditions can reduce post-viewing aggression. Secondly, these effects

result from the viewer's inhibitions towards physical aggression having I

been lowered and raised respectively through exposure to mediated

violence under particular conditions.

Concerning effects of exposure to televised violence, there is

extensive literature, most of which points towards stimulating effects.

Several excellent and thorough reviews of this literature have been

published, and conclusions of these authors are presented here. The

reader desiring more specific information concerning the literature

on effects of exposure to television violence should consult the

reviews of Ball (1969), Goranson (1969), Singer (1971), and Weiss

(1969).

Ball (1969) states, "The direction of effects of mass media

portrayals of violence is to extend the behavioral and attitudinal

boundaries of acceptable violence beyond legal and social norms

9

currently espoused by a majority of Americans (Pg. 37571" Ball also

points out that the weight of the research evidence favors the con-

clusions that exposure to television violence stimulates violent be-

havior rather than reduces it.

Goranson (1969) states:

Novel, aggressive behavior sequences are learned by

children through exposure to aggressive actions shown

on television or in films; and a large proportion of

the aggressive behaviors learned by observation are.

retained over long periods of time if_the res onses

have been practiced at least once...[Pg. 400 .

Also, he states:

A substantial number of studies have, in fact, shown

that, under a variety of conditions, the observation

of violence increases rather than decreases the viewer's

subsequent aggressiveness. This stimulation has been

shown to occur in the absence of;any prior insult or

"aggression arousal treatment" 1P9. 45471

Weiss (1969) states:

Evidence for cathartic reduction of aggressive moti-

vation is meager, at best -- none of the studies

purporting to test the catharsis hypothesis, or for

that matter any of the research discussed, has esta-

blished evidence of (catharsis) -- at best, most of

the research suggests that, under certain circumstances,

observation of filmed violence may lead to "what the

researchers call aggressive behavior" (Pg. 1397;

There are methodological inconsistencies and conceptual difficulties

within the research reviewed. However,ILhere is a cumulative weight to

the evidence, a definite trend, which points toward stimulating effects

of exposure to television violence.’|

There also seem to be certain conditions under which post-viewing

aggression is lowered (referring here to the overt expression of physi-

cal aggression, not to be confused with catharsis). A number of these

10

conditions have been researched, but the one of main interest to this

study is the viewing of television violence in which the bloody con-

sequences to thevictim are shown.

Two studies have been done which provide some indication that

viewing aggression under this condition may reduce post-viewing aggres-

sion relative to viewing aggression in which no consequences are shown.

Goranson (1969) discusses an unpublished study by Tannenbaum and

Goranson in which subjects were exposed to a filmed boxing match,

then listened to a taped ending which presented a positive (success

and fame) conclusion, a negative (suffering and death) conclusion,

or a neutral conclusion. The subjects who listened to the negative

consequences ending produced significantly less post-viewing aggression,

as measured by shocking behavior. In a study by Brammel, Taub, and

Blum (1968) subjects who had been insulted by an experimenter listened

to a taped version of the experimenter's reactions under the influence

of a drug in an experiment. Subjects heard one of three tape condi-

tions - euphoria, neutrality, and misery. Euphoria and neutrality

produced no effects, but the suffering condition reduced the subject's

desire to punish the experimenter.

These findings should, of course, be accepted tentatively. More

research needs to be done examining the effects of exposure to con-

sequences to the victim. Nonetheless, these studies suggest that

viewing consequences may reduce overt-expression of post-viewing

aggression.

It is argued widely in the literature that these stimulating and

reducing effects are a result of lowering and raising of the viewer's

inhibitions towards physical aggression. Inhibition is defined by

11

Aronfreed (1968) as the reduction in probability of occurrence of one

ferm of behavior relative to the probabilities of other forms. In-

hibition, he points out, can be internalized by the child, and will

then suppress behavior without the presence of any punishing agent.

Given that a child has been punished for aggressive behaviors, this

functions to establish internalized inhibitions by conditioning anxiety

to the punished aggressive behaviors. Sears, Maccoby and Levin (1957)

argue that people in this culture "...do not tolerate aggression com-

fortably, neither their own nor that displayed by others. It evokes

too much anxiety..."

It is these inhibitions that may be affected by exposure to

television violence. Weiss (1969) points out:

If in socialization the child is punished for

aggression or is taught, by withdrawal of rewards,

to control his aggressive tendencies, then the

arousal of an instigation to aggression may elicit

anxiety or concern and thereby inhibit the expres-

sion of aggression ... Hence, the extent to which

media-portrayed violent aggression influences these

restraining forces, by suggesting that aggression

is penmissible or desirable or the opposite, will

modulate the likelihood that aggressive behavior

will be shown 1P9. 12271

Goranson (1969) states:

...the situation of the media viewer who is re-

peatedly exposed to violence while relaxing at

home or in the theater suggests the possibility

that viewers are being "cured" of this kind of

aggression anxiety. If this sort of process is

going on, viewers may increasingly be willing

to accept real-life acts of extreme violence

without attempting to interfere...., and may

themselves be less reluctant to engage directly

in aggression when provoking circumstances arise

[Fg. 4057;

12

Goranson reviews literature dealing with this type of inhibition-

reduction process and concludes:

Repeated observation of the anxiety provoking

activity...served to eliminate the subjects'

initial anxiety-based avoidance responses.

If results from these studies can be genera-

lized to the effects of aggressive episodes

repeatedly presented in the mass media, the

repetition of media violence may have the

effect not only of reducing emotional re-

action to fictional violence, but also it

may make viewers more willing to actually

involve themselves in aggressive actions

when provoking circumstances arise [Pg. 40§7l

Singer (1971), after reviewing the literature concerning effects

of television violence, concludes:

Experimental evidence suggests the possibility

(which merits more extensive research) that the

high content of 'ustified aggression presented

in films and telev1sion may systematically lower

normal inhibitions and anxieties concerning the

expression of aggression [Pg. 557.

Literature dealing with observed reinforcement provide some further

evidence concerning effects of exposure to television violence on inhibi-

tions. Studies by Bandura, Ross and Ross (1963) and Bandura (1965a)

demonstrate that children viewing televised models who are rewarded

or not_puni$hed subsequently show much more aggression than children

who view a model who is punished for his aggression. Since the probabi-

lity of occurrence of aggression has been affected as a result of expo-

sure to violence in these studies, it seems likely that the child's

inhibitions concerning aggression have been changed.

No behavior was elicited and reinforced to bring this change about -

it occurred through observation of the reinforcement or lack of punish-

ment of a model. Kaufmann (1970) argues:

13

...everyday observation shows that much imitation

learning occurs without immediate performance by

the learner, and therefore, necessarily occurs

without reward...it is the reinforcement contin-

gencies, or expectations of rewards and unish-

ments, that determine their occurrence [_g. 4971

Similarily, Bandura (1965b) argues, "a vicarious reinforcement event...

provides (1) information concerning probable reinforcement contin-

gencies, (2) knowledge about the controlling environmental stimuli,

and (3) displays of incentives possessing activating properties...

(pg. 317L" Thus, exposure to television violence may lower the

viewer's inhibitions towards physical violence by suggesting such

behavior may provide certain rewards, and be beneficial in reaching

goals. Goranson (1969) points out in a study by Larsen (1968) that

violent methods were found to be the most popular means employed by

characters to reach desired goals in television programming, and that

socially disapproved methods were more frequently portrayed as being

successful than were approved methods. Also, this trend was found

more strongly for children's programs than for adult shows. Earlier

in this paper, it was reported that Stempel (1969) found 60 per cent of

problems presented in a week of network programming were solved by

violent tactics. On this basis Goranson states:

...we might then conclude that young viewers are

constantly being given the message that aggression

"works." They are taught that aggression is a

highly effective means of achieving one's goals

even though it may be socially disapproved. The

perceived effectiveness of aggressive actions may

thus serve to encourage young viewers to actually

use some of the techniques of;aggre5§jon that they

have learned from the media [Pg. 403/.

This process is, in effect, vicarious reinforcement.

14

In sum, the above discussion indicates that the viewer's exposure I

to television violence lowers inhibitions towards physically aggressive

behaviors through a) observation of rewards or lack of punishment to \

the aggressor, b) seeing the behavior as successful in terms of reaching I

a goal, or c) repeated viewing of violence.

If the physical and verbal aggression response classes have similar

inhibitions, as suggested by previously discussed research, then lowering

the inhibitions towards the physical response class through exposure to

television violence in which the aggressor is not punished should simi-

larily lower inhibitions towards the verbal response class, and post-

viewing verbal aggression should increase. On this basis, the following

hypothesis is offered.

:‘HTi Subjects who view violence in which consequences

to the victim are not shown will demonstrate more

\.» I’)» intense verbal aggression than subjects who view

’ television in which no violence is shown.

Earlier, two studies were discussed that suggested viewing television

violence in which bloody consequences to the victim are shown may reduce

post-viewing physical aggression (Brammel, Taub, and Blum, 1968; Tannenbaum

and Goranson, 1969). It is argued that seeing the consequences to the

victim raises the viewer's inhibitions concerning his own physical aggres-

sion. Goranson states:

..when subjects were made aware of the bloody,

painful aftermath of aggression, they were then

inhibited in their willingness to inflict harm

on others...It is just these painful sufferings

of the defeated victim, however, that may allow

the provoked viewer to "think twice" about acting

out his own aggressive impulses /Pg. 4077'.

Thus, witnessing consequences to the victim may sensitize the viewer

to potential harm they might inflict with aggressive acts, thereby

15

raising inhibitions of the viewer towards physical aggression, in-

creasing his aggression anxiety.

Again, if the physical and verbal aggression response classes

have similar inhibitions, as suggested by previously discussed research,

then raising the inhibitions towards the physical response class through

exposure to television violence in which consequences are_shown should

similarily raise inhibitions towards the verbal response class, and

post-viewing verbal aggression should decrease. On this basis, the

following hypothesis is offered:

H2: Subjects who view violence in which consequences

to the victim are shown will demonstrate less

intense verbal aggression than subjects who

view television in which no violence is shown.

It should be noted that in both H1 and Hz, the aggressor is not

punished for his acts. The only difference is that of showing or not

showing consequences to the victim. It is 9F99944D9F9,PPAF,V19W9F5

.. “a: ..wu

'——‘—~.,-‘~m .

are not used to seeing consequences on television.__Television pro-._._‘ H

ducers and television production codes prohibit portrayal of conse-

quences - physical agony and suffering (Broadcasting, Aug. 19, 1968,

pg. 23). As such, seeing consequences is to an extent shocking due

to its novelty, and as such should have maximum impact. Thus, al-

though seeing aggression in which the aggressor is not punished

should lower inhibitions (Bandura, 1965), the viewing of consequences

should overcome this effect and raise inhibitions of these viewers

above those of viewers exposed to nonviolent television.

16

Socioeconomic Status

Past research on children from families of varying socioeconomic

status (SES) would indicate differences in both normal amount of

verbal aggression and effects of exposure to television violence

on verbal aggression.”

Allinsmith (TDBSitfound that lower SES children were more likely

to respond to potentially frustrating situations with the most direct

forms of aggression than middle SES children. Also, lower SES children

habitually expressed more aggressive behavior than middle SES children.

The environment of the lower SES child is more likely to contain fre—

quent acts of physical violence than the environment of the middle SES

child (U.S. Government, 19%8). Dominick and Greenberg (1970) found P//f

that lower SES boys (grades 4=6) were more approving of physical

aggression, more willing to use physical aggression, perceived violencei

as a more effective means of problem solving, and responded with more

physically aggressive solutions to potentially frustrating situations I

than middle SES peers.

Given these findings, then, it would be reasonable to assume that

lower SES adolescents have lower inhibitions towards physically aggres-

sive acts than middle SES adolescents, and as such they should also

have lower inhibitions towards verbal aggression. Thus, lower SES

adolescents should demonstrate more intense verbally aggressive be-

havior across all treatments than middle SES children. Therefore,

the following hypothesis is suggested:

Subjects from families of lower socioeconomic status

will demonstrate more intense verbal aggression than

v.3 subjects from families of middle socioeconomic status.

17

Research concerning viewing differences among lower and middle

SES children and adolescents, together with the research concerning

differences in physical aggression suggest two television treatment

by SES interaction hypotheses.

I Reif (196;; found that boys more exposed to and involved with

physical aggression in their environment (institutionalized delinquents)

were less likely to see visual stimuli as violent than delinquents with-

out a history of aggressiveness, and/or without current aggressive

tendencies. This would suggest that the lower SES adolescent will

see any violent television stimulus as less violent than the middle

SES adolescent who is exposed to and involved in aggression in his

environment to a much lesser extent. Schramm, Lyle and Parker (1961),

and Greenberg and Dominick (1969, 1970), found that lower SES boys and \

girls, grades 4, 5, 6, and 10 are much heavier television viewers than

middle SES boys and girls.

The lower SES adolescents are therefore exposed more to violent

television programs than middle SES adolescents, which would suggest

they are more desensitized to television violence and thus will be

less affected by an experimental exposure. Research by Greenberg and I

Gordon (1971) demonstrated that lower SES boys (5th grade) who are I

exposed to television violence, as compared to middle SES boys who

are exposed to the same violence perceive less violence, perceive the

violence as more acceptable and like watching the violence more.

The above research would suggest, then, that/Aower SES adolescents

are exposed to more television violence and see it as less violent than

middle SES adolescentsy It is argued, then, that lower SES adolescents

18

have, in effect, become desensitized to television violence (if they

were ever sensitized to it initially). and as such any single television

exposure will have less effect on their inhibitions than it will have on

middle SES adolescents who are not exposed as much to either real or

televised violence, and who see the television as more violent. On

this basis, the following interaction hypothesis is made:‘

H4: There will be an interaction between television

exposure and socioeconomic status, suth that sub-

jects who view violence in which consequences to

the victim are not shown will demonstrate more‘

intense verbal aggression than subjects who view

television in which no violence is shown, and

this effect will be greater for subjects from

families of middle socioeconomic status than

subjects from families of lower socioeconomic

status.

A similar argument can be made concerning effects of exposure to

television violence in which consequences to the victim are shown. It

was stated earlier that lower SES adolescents are exposed to and are

involved in more acts of physical violence than middle SES adolescents.

Therefore, they are more exposed to actual consequences of physical

aggression than are the middle SES adolescents. _As such, exposure to

television violence in which consequences to the victim are shown

should have less of an effect on the lower SES adolescent's inhibitions

than on the middle SES adolescent's inhibitions who would find exposure

to consequences a much more novel and shocking experience. On this

basis, the following interaction hypothesis is offered:

There will be an interaction between television

exposure and socioeconomic status, such that sub-

jects who view violence in which consequences to

a the victim are shown will demonstrate less intense

"\.verbal aggression than subjects who view television

in which no violence is shown, and this effect will

be greater for subjects from families of middle socio-

economic status than subjects from families of lower

socioeconomic status.

19

In summary, past research suggests that similar inhibitions may

be associated with both physical and verbal aggression. Past research

also suggests that exposure to particular kinds of television violence,

e.g., with and without consequences of the violence to the victim, have

differential effects on the viewer's inhibitions towards physical aggres-

sion. Based on this, two hypotheses were offered concerning effects of

violence with and without consequence on the intensity of adolescents'

verbally aggressive behavior. Previous studies indicate socioeconomic

status is a predictor of level of aggressive behavior, and that it

mediates effects of exposure to television violence. On this basis,

one hypothesis was formed concerning intensity of verbally aggressive

behavior of youths from lower and middle socioeconomic status homes,

and two other hypotheses were made concerning interaction affects of

socioeconomic status and television violence with and without con-

sequences on intensity of verbally aggressive behavior.

CHAPTER II

METHODS

The Sample

Data were collected from 242 seventh, eighth, and ninth grade

boys during June, 1971. There were 234 usable questionnaires. Given

the emphasis on aggressive behavior, girls were excluded from the

sample to control for possible sex differences. Subjects were sam-

pled from three schools in middle and lower socioeconomic neighborhoods

in the Lansing area.

Variables and_Qperationalizations

Independent Variables

1) Television exposure treatments. Three video-tapes were edited,

each approximately four minutes and thirty seconds, black and white, with

sound, taken from the movie The Chase. The violent tape in which con-

sequences to the victim ar§_shown was a scene in which the town sheriff

is beaten by three local men. Consequences of the beating are clearly

shown, including blood, swollen face, slow and uncoordinated movements,

slurred speech, etc. The violent tape in which the consequences are_

ggt_shown was the same scene, but with the blood and after-beating

consequences edited out. The version was recorded on video-tape using a

filter to remove the reds, thus wiping out the blood; other consequences

were removed through electronic editing. In the scene, the sheriff

20

21

appears to be in a fight during which he is knocked unconscious. The

nonviolent tape contained the same characters as in the violent tapes,

and action scenes such as cars driving and an oil well in operation,

but no aggressive behavior was depicted. Similar scenes were included

in each of the three tapes to control context and provide a consistent

story line. All verbal aggression was edited out from all versions.

2) Socioeconomic status. At the end of a post-viewing question-

naire, subjects were asked to write down the occupation of their father

and mother. Subjects were classified as middle or lower socioeconomic

status on the basis of father's occupation if living, or mother's occu-

pation if either the father was not living or if the response given

for the father's occupation was otherwise uncodable. If both responses

were uncodable (3% of the cases), the socioeconomic status of the school

which the student attended was used for classification. A combination

of the Troldahl Occupational Prestige Scale (Troldahl, 1967) and the

North-Hatt Occupational Ratings (1947) were used as aids in assignment

of occupations to socioeconomic classifications.

Dependent Variable

Verbal aggression was measured by three different techniques.

1) Situation items. In a post-viewing questionnaire, fbur situa-

tions which presented potentially verbal aggression provoking encounters

were given to the subjects. For two of the items (closed items), nine

verbal statements varying in intensity of verbal aggression were offered

for each situation. These statements were constructed on the basis of

a 10-point interval rating scale developed by Mosher (1968) to code

22

intensity of verbal aggression produced by delinquent boys similar in

agetoflthepresent subjeCts. For the other two situations (open items),

subjects wrote down what they would say in that situation. On the basis

of the responses given and the interval scale developed by Mosher (1968)

eleven categories were constructed varying in intensity of verbal aggres-

sion. Two independent judges sorted all statements of subjects into the

eleven categories. Correlations between judges' sortings were 9,99 and_

w“(1“.93Mfor open items 1 and 2 respectively. All feur items and categories

(“usediare presented in Table l. 9;;3: I“ T 1’

Subjects were asked to imagine themselves in each situation and

to choose the one statement that was most similar to what they would

honestly say (closed items), and to write down what they would honestly

say (open items). For each closed item, subjects were assigned a score

from one (low intensity) to nine (high intensity); for each open item,

subjects were assigned a score from one (low intensity to eleven (high

intensity).

Intercorrelations were computed and are presented in Table 2.

On the basis of the intercorrelations, Open item 2 was dropped

from the analysis. The low intercorrelations of this item with the

others, are possibly due to the different type of situation depicted

by this item; i.e., this item describes a situation in which a friend

is being attacked, whereas the other situations involve self as the

recipient of the attack. The remaining three items have a range of

intercorrelations from 0.28 to 0.57, with an average correlation of

0.39.

23

TABLE 1

VERBAL AGGRESSION SITUATION ITEMS

Closed Item 1:

Imagine that a student you know tells your teacher that you cheated

on a test. This student knows you did not cheat, so he lied. What

would ou sa to this student? Choose thE’one statement that is

most 11 at y9g_would __y and put an "X"—on the line next to it.

Closed Item 2:

Imagine that a student you know takes your new pen and would not

give it back when you asked for it. What would on to this

student? Choose the one statement that is most_ taygg_

woulds_ay_and put an 1"l'i'I'I'on the line next to it.

Scale and Values:

we:

1 ______I would say nothing

2 ______I would say something, but not about what happened.

3 ______I would tell him that was not a good thing to do.

4 ______I would tell him he was a pretty dumb person for doing that.

5 ______I would tell him he was a stupid idiot for doing that.

6 I would tell him I hate stupid people who do things like

that.

7 _____ I would tell him I hate him for doing a stupid thing

like that and make sure heknew I was mad.

8 -_____ I would call him the worst names I could think of and

make sure he knew I was 5§311y_mad.

9 _____ I would call him the worst names I could think of and

tell him I would hit him if he ever did that again.

24

Table l (cont'd.)

Open Item 1:

Imagine that you have been standing in the lunch line at the cafeteria

for some time and a guy you don't like cuts into the line in front of

you. What would y9g_§ay to him?

(PRINT YOUR ANSWER BELOW)

Open Item 2:

Imagine that you have a friend who is got very tall. If another

student called your friend a dirty name and make fun of his size,

what would ygg_§gy_to this other student?

(PRINT YOUR ANSWER BELOW)

Scale and Values:

1 Nothing

Ask him nicely to stop

Tell him to stop

Tell him to stop using swear and/or taboo words

Swear and/or taboo words only

Call him a name

Call him a taboo name

Mention and/or threat of mild physical aggression

\OCDVOIU'l-th

Mention and/or threat of intense physical aggression

lO Mention and/or threat of intense physical aggression

using swear and/or taboo words

11 Mention and/or threat of severe physical aggression

with or without swear and/or taboo words

25

TABLE 2

VERBAL AGGRESSION SITUATION ITEMS

Intercorrelations

C1 C2 01 02

Closed 1 --

Closed 2 .57 --

Open 1 .28 .33 --

Open 2 .04 .oo .02 --

Means]. §2'_s

Closed 1 5.05 . 2.62

Closed 2 5.12 2.70

Open 1 4.10 2.62

Open 2 3.80 2.47

1

The higher the mean, the more aggressive

the scale value

26

The sum of the three remaining situation items was used to index

verbal aggressive behavior of each subject. The scale range was 3 -

29. Twelve of the 702 total items were uncodable or blank, and were

each recoded to the grand mean for that item. The scores ranged from

3 - 28 with a mean of 14.16 and a standard deviation of 6.07.

2) Word-association test. After the situation items, a word-

association test was administered to the subjects. Twelve words were

presented, eight aggressive and four neutral words, one to a page with

a line under each word for subject response. Subjects were instructed

to write down the first word they thought of after reading the stimulus

word, and to go as rapidly as possible. The eight aggressive stimulus

words were chosen from Buss' (1961) listing of 146 aggressive words

with intensity ratings and frequency counts for each word measured,

such that the eight words represented a range in both intensity and

frequency of occurrence in the English language. The twelve words

used, with Buss' aggression ratings and word counts for the eight

aggressive words, are in Table 3.

Subjects' associations to the eight aggressive words and one neu-

tral word (blue) were rated by 32 judges on a five-point scale measuring

intensity of aggressiveness (l = not at all aggressive, 5 = very aggres-

sive). Each association was presented with its respective stimulus word.

Judges were Juniors and Seniors attending summer sessions of two upper-

level undergraduate Communication courses. Means and standard deviations

were computed for each association from the judges' ratings. Means

ranged from 1.000 (Blue - Art) to 4.438 (Killing - Mom), and standard

deviations ranged from 0.000 (Blue - Art) to 1.583 (Hurt - O.K.).

27 «VIII .

,.

gut-o av

TABLE 3 If ..5 I1

worm ASSOCIATION STIMULI

Stimulus Word Buss' aggressiveness Thorndike-Large

at1ngs Frequency Count

Killing 8.7 100 to 1 million

per million

Hatred 7.4 20 per million

Cruel 6.4 46 per million

Hurt 5.8 100 to 1 million

per million

Anger 5.1 50 to 100 per

million

Unfriendly 4.2 4 per million

Dislike 3.9 23 per million

Disagree 3.0 3 per million

Blue ---

Sleep ---

Gold ---

Warm ---

1Judges rated words on a 9-point aggressiveness scale, 9 indicating

most intense aggressiveness.

28

The nine stimulus words were submitted to a factor analysis

(principle axis with varimax rotation) and intercorrelations were

computed. Intercorrelations and factor loadings are presented in

Table 4.

Four of the eight aggressive words consistently load highly on

Factor I: Hate, Unfriendly, Disagree, and Dislike. These four

words have intercorrelations which range from 0.28 - 0.36, with

an average correlation of 0.33 (Table 4, A). The other four aggres-

sive stimulus words do not load consistently nor highly with each

other or the first four stimulus words. The intercorrelations

further demonstrate little relationship among them (Table 4, C)

or the first four words (Table 4, B). _

Because of their lack of relationship, these four words were

dropped from the rest of the analysis in this study. The word Blue

was included as a discriminitive validity check, and as would be

expected, this word produced a negative factor loading on factor

I, and a loading of .77 on factor II. Thus, some discrimination

was achieved by this word association method.

The sum of the four remaining words (Hate, Unfriendly, Disagree,

and Dislike) was used to index verbally aggressive behavior of each

subject. The scale range was 4-20. Of the 936 total items, 22

were blank or uncodable. Talbott (1967) indicates that with the I

type of scale used for the judge's ratings, missing data can be

recoded to the mid-point scale value.) This was done for all missing

data (blanks and uncodable responses), and as such missing data were

recoded to 3 for each item. Scores ranged from 4-13 with a mean of

7.05 and a standard deviation of 2.37.

29 Q>Ll

TABLE 4 i1

INTERCORRELATIONS AND FACTOR LOADINGS 0F

NINE WORD ASSOCIATION STIMULI

Hate Unfriendly Disagree Dislike

A. Hate --

Unfriendly .28 --

Disagree .33 .33 --

Dislike .36 .36 .31 --

Killing Hurt Cruel Apger Blue

8. Hate .13 .09 .05 .08 .10

Unfriendly .10 .ll .16 .25 .09

Disagree .25 .07 .18 .08 ..04

Dislike .ll .08 .25 .25 .001

Killing Hurt Cruel Anger Blue

C. Killing --

Hurt .04 __

Cruel .14 .00 --

Anger .12 .06 .04 --

Blue -.12 -.02 .00 -.09 --

Factor Loading§_

I II

Killing 0.22 -0.61

Hate 0.68 0.13

Unfriendly 0.70 -0.02

Disagree 0.62 -0.24

Hurt 0.20 -0.06

Cruel 0.34 -0.24

Dislike 0.71 -O.l3

Anger 0.29 -0.39

Blue -0.25 0.77

Proportions of Variance .24 .14

30

3) Word ratings. Following the word-association test, subjects

were asked to rate each of the twelve stimulus words used in the word

association test on three seven-point bi-polar adjective rating scales

(mean-kind, excited-calm, good-bad). A score of one indicated kind,

calm, and good, and seven indicated mean, excited, and bad.

Scores for the aggressive words were intercorrelated and submitted

to a factor analysis (principle axis with varimax rotation). Only the

intercorrelations and factor loadings for the four words left in the

analysis from the word associationtest (Hate, Unfriendly, Disagree,

and Dislike) are reported.

In order to determine the relationship between words and scales,

an overall factor analysis was computed. This produced a consistent

second factor through all rotations, on which the excited-calm scores

for the fbur words (Hate, Unfriendly, Disagree, Dislike) loaded highly:

0.57, 0.44, 0.66, 0.60 respectively. The loadings of the other scales

for these words were inconsistent in the overall factor analysis.

However, the intercorrelations show that three separate dimensions

exist, each scale (mean-kind, good-bad, excited-calm) measuring each

dimension. The intercorrelations among scales and between scales

for the four words are presented in Table 5.

The matrices demonstrate fairly strong and consistent correlations

among scales (Tables 5, A, B, C) and fairly inconsistent and weak

correlations between scales (Tables 5, D, E, F). Within scale inter-

correlations between the words on the mean-kind scale range from 0.07

to 0.38, and average 0.25 (Table 5, A). Excited-calm intercorrelations

range from 0.18 to 0.36, and average 0.25 (Table 5, B). Good-bad

31

TABLE 5

WORD RATING INTERCORRELATIONS

A. Mean-Kind bprean-Kind B. Excited-Calm by Excited-Calm

_l 2 3 4 l 2 3 _4_

1 Hate -- 1 Hate --

2 Unfriendly .24 -- 2 Unfriendly .29 --

3 Disagree .07 .32 -- 3 Disagree .24 .20 --

4 Dislike .38 .34 .12 -- 4 Dislike L20 .36 .18 --

C. Good-Bad by Good-Bad

l 2 3 4

1 Hate --

2 Unfriendly .41 --

3 Disagree .12 .25 --

4 Dislike .44 .35 .27 --

D. Good-Bad by_Excited-Calm E. Mean-Kind by Excited-Calm

Excited-Calm Good-Bad Excited-Calm ‘ Mean-Kind

1 2 3 4__ l 2 3 4

1 Hate .05 -.05 -.02 -.10 1 Hate .24 .12 .18 .17

2 Unfriendly -.04 -.10 .07 -.01 2 Unfriendly .15 .22 .20 .16

3 Disagree .12 -.04 -.10 .14 3 Disagree .16 .ll .26 .ll

4 Dislike I.03 -.08 -.07 .06 4 Dislike .01 .11 .12 .19

F. Mean-Kind by Good-Bad

Good-Bad Mean-Kind

l 2 3 4

1 Hate .55 .08 .06 .19

2 Unfriendly .35 .42 .02 .10

3 Disagree .19 .11 .23 .12

4 Dislike .36 .22 .15 .44

32

intercorrelations range from 0.12 to 0.44, and average 0.31 (Table 5,

C). The lower correlations within each scale were produced by the

word Disagree, which does not seem to fit as well with the others.

Analyzing the between scale intercorrelations, good-bad and excited-

calm produced correlations that ranged from -0.10 to 0.14, and averaged

0.00 (Table 5, D). Intercorrelations between mean-kind and excited-calm

ranged from 0.01 to 0.26, (Table 5, E) and averaged 0.15, thus showing

little relationship. These figures along with the overall factor ana-

lysis show that excited-calm seems to be a separate dimension, demon-

strating no relationship with good-bad, and very little with mean-kind.

Mean-kind intercorrelated with good-bad produced correlations ranging

from 0.02 to 0.55 with an average correlation of 0.22 (Table 5, F).

There is some relationship here, but as shown by the overall factor

analysis, it is an inconsistent one, and not particularly stable. As

such, this relationship did not warrant combining mean-kind and good-

bad. Naecause of the consistent and strong correlations between words

within each scale, and generally weak and inconsistent relationship

between scales, scores for the words were summed within each scale to

form three indices for each subject. For each index, the scale range

was 4-28. Blanks and uncodable responses were recoded to the mid-point

of each scale, 4, as suggested by Talbott (1967). Score ranges, means,

standard deviations and percent blanks and uncodable responses for

each scale are presented in Table 6.

Since there was no basis on which to predict if, when inhibitions

towards verbal aggression are lowered, a subject will rate a word more

or less aggressively, these measures were used for exploratory purposes

to determine effects of inhibition on aggressive word ratings.

33

TABLE 6

RANGE, MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND %

MISSING DATA FOR WORD RATING INDICES

59119.9. X SD; % Missing Data

Mean-Kind 6-28 22.51 3.41 2

Excited-Calm 7-28 18.75 4.19 2

Good-Bad 4-28 19.34 4.81 2

Manipulation Check

An index was included which measures the SUPjeCt'S_!illifl§ES§§

EQmEEEaEUXEICSI aggression in real life. This was done to examine

if the television exposure had an effect on physically aggressive

tendencies, which is predicted since inhibitions towards physical

aggression should be lowered and raised depending on the television

exposure condition. Four items were adapted from the Buss-Durkee

Hostility Inventory (Buss, 1967). Each of these items was a declara-

tive sentence followed by a five-point scale permitting the subject

to indicate his degree of agreement or disagreement (1= low willingness

to use aggression, 5= high willingness to use physical aggression).

The items and intercorrelations between them are presented in Table

7.

Intercorrelations ranged from 0.13 to 0.43, with an average

correlation of 0.27. The lower correlations may be due to the

alteration of directional sets in question wording, done for

control purposes. This scale reversal may have confused some of

the subjects, especially the lower SES subjects who have reading

34

TABLE 7

WILLINGNESS TO USE PHYSICAL AGGRESSION

ITEMS AND ITEM INTERCORRELATIONS

Items

1. "There is no good reason fer ever hitting anyone."

2. "People who keep on bothering me are asking for a punch in

the nose."

3. "Anybody who says bad things about me is looking for a fight."

4. "I think fighting is a waste of time."

Scale

I agree very much

I agree a little

I'm not sure

I disagree a little

I disagree very much

Intercorrelations

Items 1 and 4

1

0'1th

Scale Values

Items 2 and 3

5

NM

I 2 3 4

1 --

2 .43 --

3 .27 .13 --

4 .23 .29 .29 --

35

problems. These four items and the four verbal situation items were

intercorrelated and submitted to a factor analysis (principle axis

with varimax rotation). The intercorrelations and factor loadings

are presented in Table 8.

The physical items and open item 2 (dropped earlier from the

analysis) break out on the second factor, but not cleanly. In a

further rotation, physical items 2 and 3 loaded on a third factor,

with physical items 1 and 4 again loading on factors I and II. Open

item 2 remained on factor II, by itself, indicating a lack of relation-

ship between it and the other items. The difference in extent of

loadings among the physical items may again be due to the scale

reversal problem described earlier. (The intercorrelations between

the physical and verbal items are also high (excluding open item 2),

ranging from 0.14 to 0.33, with an average correlation of 0.24. This

may be due to one of three reasons: 1) scores are similar because

the manipulations are working as predicted, i.e., inhibitions for

both physical and verbal responses are similar; 2) the verbal items

are measuring part of the physical dimension; or 3) the physical

items are tapping part of the verbal dimension. Since the physical

items are paper and pencil measures, they require a verbal rather

than an actual physical response, and as such probably overlap the

verbal aggression situation items. However, on the basis of the

factor loadings, which show some separation of verbal from physical

items, and given the face validity of the items themselves, the

physical aggression items were summed to form an index of willingness

to use physical aggression, separate from the verbal aggression index.

36

TABLE 8

PHYSICAL AND VERBAL AGGRESSION INTERCORRELATIONS

AND FACTOR LOADINGS

Closed 1 ' Closed 2 “Open 1 Open 2

Physical 1 .23 .21 .14 .13

Physical 2 .22 .26 .26 .05

Physical 3 .27 .23 .20 .06

Physical 4 .25 28 .33 .15

Factor Loadiggg

I 11

Closed 1 .75 .10

Closed 2 .80 .06

Open 1 .59 .18

Open 2 -.29 .71

Physical 1 .21 .58

Physical 2 .42 .47

Physical 3 .42 .43

Physical 4 .38 .55

Proportions of Variance .27 .20

37

The scale range was 4-20. Blanks and uncodable responses were recoded

to the scale mid-point (6 of the 936 total items). Scores ranged from

4 to 20, with a mean of 12.18 and a standard deviation of 3.75.

Relationship Among the Indices

After the development of the six indices, they were intercorrelated

and submitted to a factor analysis (principle axis with varimax rotation).

The intercorrelations and factor loadings are presented in Table 9.

The intercorrelations and factor loadings demonstrate a strong re-

lationship between the verbal and physical aggression indices. The

word-association index seems unrelated to the others. The mean-kind

word rating index and the good-bad word rating index show some inter-

relation, separate from the other indices, and the excited-calm word

rating index demonstrates itself to be separate from the others, load-

ing .76 on factor three, with mean-kind and good-bad indices loading

strongly and negatively on factor one (-.70 and -.87 respectively).

Extra Control Group

To insure that the group exposed to television in which no violence

was shown provided base-line data, a no-treatment group was added to the

design. This group was not exposed to any television. Scores obtained

from this group should not differ significantly from those of the group

exposed to the nonviolent television.

Procedures

1) Questionnaire construction. The order of physical and verbal

aggression items, and the open- and closed-ended verbal aggression

situation items were randomized. This set of items was followed by

INTERCORRELATIONS AND FACTOR

Verbal Aggression

Situation Index

Willingness to Use

Physical Aggression

Index

Word Association

Index

Mean-Kind Word

Rating Index

Excited-Calm Word

Rating Index '

Good-Bad Word

Rating Index

38

TABLE 9

LOADINGS OF SIX INDICES

Factor Loadings

VA PA WA MK EC GB I II III

-- .01 .82 .01

.45 -- .09 .83 -.02

.11 .13 " -.33 .33 -.60

-.02 -.06 -.ll " -.70 .00 .54

.02 .OO -.04~ .35 " -.17 .15 .76

-.06 -.12 .06 .42 .00 "' -.87 -.14 -.09

Proportions of Variance .23 .25 .21

39

the word-association test, within which the order of stimulus words

were randomized. The next section of the questionnaire was the rat-

ings of the stimulus words, and these words were also randomized.

The final section included questions concerning grade, sex, and

parents' occupations.

It was of interest to determine if there was an order effect

with both the order of physical and verbal aggression items, and

the order of open- and closed-ended verbal aggression items. This

was tested for, the results of which will be presented in the Chapter

III.

2) Randomization of subjects to treatments. All boys within

the classes obtained from each school were used in the experiment.‘

Treatments were randomly assigned to each class such that time of

day was controlled, and approximately equal number of subjects were

sought for each cell.

3) Procedures for data collection. Boys from a class were

taken to the experimental room, or the girls and teacher were re-

moved from the classroom if it was used as the experimental room.

A short introduction was given to the subjects. They were told they

would be shown some television (unless they were in the no-treatment

group) and then given a form to be filled out; that the farm was not

a test; and, that answers would be kept private (no names were asked

for on the forms). The appropriate video-tape was then shown, utilizing

two monitors such that all subjects could easily view the scene. In the

no-treatment condition, the forms were administered at this time.

40

Following exposure to the experimental tape, the forms were

distributed and a short introduction was given, reminding the sub-

jects that it was not a test and that their honest answers were re-

quired. Each section was completed one at a time, with instructions

for each read aloud. After subjects completed the last section of

the form, they were asked not to talk about what they did to their

friends, and then they were dismissed. The entire procedure including

exposure to the video-tape lasted approximately 35 minutes.

Design

The design is summarized below:

Treatment

Violence A Violence

Without Non No- With

Consequences Violence Treatment Consequences

Socio- Lower * l ‘ 1

economic

Status Middle l I . I

Dependent Measures:

1) Verbal Aggression Situation Index

2) Word Association Index

3) Mean-Kind Word Rating Index

4 Excited-Calm Word Rating Index

5 Good-Bad Word Rating Index

6) Willingness to Use Physical Aggression

Index (Manipulation Check)

Analytic Procedures

First, order effects were determined. This involved computation

of a two (middle-lower SES) by three (television exposure treatments)

41

by two (order of physical and verbal aggression items) by two (order

of open- and closed-ended verbal aggression items) analysis of vari-

ance for the willingness to use physical aggression index and the

verbal aggression situation index.

Secondly, differences between the nonviolent treatment group

and the no-treatment group were determined by means of two by two

analyses of variance for each dependent index.

Finally, all hypotheses were tested using in one case the over-

all two by three by two by two analysis of variance computed to test

order effects, and in all other cases, two by two analyses of variance.

It was stated earlier in this chapter that treatments were ran-

domly assigned to classes in an attempt to obtain proportionate cell

frequencies. This procedure failed to obtain equality of proportiona-

lity, and as such a disproportionate analysis of variance technique

was used for all tests involving analysis of variance. This technique

utilizes a least-squares solution to correct for disproportionate cell

frequencies.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Results will be presented first for order effects. Secondly,

results of the comparison between the no-treatment and non-violent

television treatment groups will be presented for each dependent

measure and the measure of willingness to use physical aggression,

the manipulation check. Finally, the results for each hypothesis

will be shown, presenting the data for each dependent index and the

manipulation check: verbal aggression, situations, word associations,

mean—kind word ratings, excited-calm wbrd ratings, good-bad word

ratings, and willingness to use physical aggression.

Order Effects

To test for order effects, an overall two (middle-lower SES) by

three (television exposure treatments) by two (order of physical and

verbal aggression situation items) by two (order of open- and closed-

ended verbal aggression situation items) analysis of variance was

computed fer the verbal aggression situation index and the willingness

to use physical aggression index.

Results of the analysis of variance computed for the verbal

aggression situation index are presented in Table 10.

No significant main effects or interaction effects were found for

either the order of physical and verbal aggression items or the order of

open- and closed-ended verbal aggression situation items.

42

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF VERBAL AGGRESSION SCORES CLASSIFIED

BY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS (SES) X TELEVISION EXPOSURE TREAT-

TABLE 10

43

MENTS (TV) X ORDER OF PHYSICAL AND VERBAL AGGRESSION SITUATION

ITEMS (PV) X ORDER OF OPEN- AND CLOSED-ENDED VERBAL AGGRESSION

SITUATION ITEMS (0C)

Source of Variance

SES

TV

PV

0C

SESXTV

SESXPV

SESXOC

TVXPV

TVXOC

PVXOC

SESXTVXPV

SESXTVXOC

SESXPVXOC

TVXPVXOC

SESXTVXPVXOC

ERROR

TOTAL

SS

323.70

103.18

28.02

7.

136.

17.

19.

117.

177.

.94

76.

125.

12.

78

46

43

76

11

72

30

22

43

48.66

134.09

6746.

5545. 54

53

df

NN—‘NN

MS

323.

51

28.

68.

17.

19.

58.

38.

62.

12.

24.

67

37.

70

.59

02

.78

23

43

76

56

.86

.94

15

61

43

33

.05

47

00‘

ON—IOO—‘OO

.64

.38

.75

.21

.82

.47

.53

.56

.37

.03

.02

.67

.33

.65

.79

0.004

ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

11$

44

Results of the analysis of variance computed for the index of

willingness to use physical aggression is presented in Table 11.

TABLE 11

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PHYSICAL AGGRESSION SCORES CLASSIFIED

BY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS (SES) X TELEVISION EXPOSURE TREATMENT

(TV) X ORDER OF PHYSICAL AND VERBAL AGGRESSION SITUATION ITEMS

PV) X ORDER OF OPEN- AND CLOSED-END VERBAL AGGRESSION SITUA-

TION ITEMS (0C)

Source of Variance SS df MS F P

SES . 109.38‘ 1 109.38 8.21 0.005

TV 7.07 2 3.53 0.27 ns

PV 6.15 1 6.15 0.46 ns

0c 9.33 ‘ 1 9.33 0.70 ns

SESXTV 96.59 3 2 48.29 3.62 0.03

SESXPV . ' 7.91 1 7.91 0.59 ns

SESXOC 0.32 1 0.32 0.02 ns

rvxpv 115.88 2 57.94 4.35 0.02

rvxoc 39.37 2 19.68 1 48 ns

vaoc 0.05 1 0.05 0.00 ns

SESXTVXPV 10.98 2 5.49 0.41 ns

SESXTVXOC 85.87 2 42 94 3.22 0.04

SESXPVXOC 10.25 1 10.25 0.77 ns

rvxpvxoc 1.89 2 0.94 0.07 ns

SESXTVXPVXOC 30.01 2 15.01 1.13 ns

ERROR lgzgng_ 148 13.33

TOTAL 2473.23

45

A significant three-way interaction was feund for order of Open-

and closed—ended verbal aggression situation items, television exposure

treatments, and socioeconomic status. The cell means are presented in

Table 12, with the order of physical and verbal aggression situation

items collapsed.

TABLE 12

CELL MEANS

(The Higher the Mean, the More the Willingness

to Use Physical Aggression)

Order T.V. S_E_S_ X E

‘ Treatment

Open-Closed LSES 14.65 15

NV ‘

MSES 10.65 11

LSES 13.78 11

V

MSES '9.92 15

LSES 10.72 13

VC

MSES 13.10 13

X E

LSES 12.15 11

NV

Closed-Open MSES 11.41 16

LSES 14.93 11

V

MSES 12.20 21

LSES 13.29 13

VC

MSES 11.84 22

46

An examination of the pattern of means shows that the closed-openW‘s“;_‘ Mc-

ordeewiflgwgmgegerally higher means in each treatment, and generally

less lower-middle SES differences, compared to the open-closed order.

Thus, order of open- and closed-ended verbal aggression situation

items seems to have affected subject responses to the items measuring

willingness to use physical aggression.

Also, a significant two-way interaction was found for order of

physical and verbal aggression items and television exposure treat-

ments. The cell means are presented in Table 13, collapsing socio-

economic status and order of open- and closed-ended verbal aggression

situation items.

TABLE 13

CELL MEANS

(The Higher the Mean, the More the Willingness

to Use Physical Aggression)

T. V. Treatment

L". l 19

Physical-Verbal 11.58 11.79 13.25

(n=29) (n=24) (n=28)

Order

Verbal-Physical 12.85 13.70 11.22

(n=24) (n=34) (n=33)

Examination of these means indicates that differences between'- ~'"\.‘ .4 ,

television exposure treatments tend to be greater for the verbal-

M"

physical order thanthe physical-verbal order. Thus, order of physical

47

and verbal aggression items seems to have affected subject responses

to the items measuring willingness to use physical aggression.

Both order of closed-open items and physical-verbal items had an

effect on subject response patterns for the physical aggression index.

For this reason, orders will not be collapsed for the verbal and physical

aggression indices. The overall 2X3X2X2 analysis of variance will be

used for comparisons involving these two indices.

Comparison Between the No-Treatment and NonViolent

Television Treatment Groups_

To insure that the nonviolent treatment group provided base-line

data, this group was compared to a no-treatment group. A two (non-

violent television exposure and no-treatment conditions) by two (lower-

middle SES) treatment by levels analysis of variance was computed for

each dependent index and the index measuring willingness to use physical

aggression.

No significant differences were found between the nonviolent treat-

ment and no-treatment groups, either treatment main effects or treatment

by socioeconomic status interaction effects. Thus, the nonviolent tele-

vision group was used as the control group in the analysis of hypotheses.

The results of the analysis of variance computed for each dependent index

are presented in Table 14.

Television Treatment Effects

The overall 2X3X2X2 analyses of variance yielded main effect F-

ratios which determined if exposure to the treatment conditions affected

the physical and verbal aggression dependent indices. Two by two treatment

48

TABLE 14

ANALYSES 0F VARIANCE

NonViolence - No Treatment (TV) X Socioeconomic Status (SES)

Verbal Aggression Situation Index

Source of Variance SS df MS F P

TV 26.59 1 26.59 0.86 ns

SES 3.34 1 3.34 0.11 ns

TVXSES 40.99 1 40.99 1.32 ns

ERROR 3437.33 111_ 30.97

TOTAL 3506.73 114

Word Association Index

Source of Variance SS df MS F P

TV 3.45 l 3.45 0.61 ns

SES 2.64 l 2.64 0.46 ns

TVXSES 0.00 l 0.00 0.00 ns

ERROR 631;§§_ 111_ 5.69

TOTAL 637.86 114

Mean-Kind Word Rating Index

Source of Variance SS df MS F P

TV 1.03 1 1.03 0.08 ns

SES 11.27 1 11.27 0.83 ns

TVXSES 8.73 l 8.73 0.65 ns

ERROR 1§QQ;§2_ 111_ 13.52

TOTAL 1523.53 114

Table 14 (cont'd)

Excited-Calm Word Rating Index

Source of Variance

TV

SES

TVXSES

ERROR

TOTAL

SS

2.63

37.80

2.15

2170.85

2214.57

49

df

1

1

1

m

114

MS

2.63

37.80

2.15

19.56

Good-Bad Word Rating Index

Source of Variance

TV

SES

TVXSES

ERROR

TOTAL

SS

7.35

5.95

0.66

2843.83

2857.79

df

1

1

1

u].

114

MS

7.35

5.95

0.66

25.62

0.13

1.94

0.11

0.29

0.23

0.03

Willingness to Use Physical Aggression

Source of Variance

TV

SES

TVXSES

ERROR

TOTAL

SS

2.09

60.23

24.89

1515.08

1596.30

df

1

1

1

1‘1

114

MS

2.09

60.23

24.89

13.65

F

0.15

4.41

1.82

HS

'15

HS

NS

HS

115

.04

"S

50

by socioeconomic status analyses were used to test treatment effects

for the remaining four indices.

It was hypothesized that:

H : Subjects who view violence in which consequences to

I the victim are not shown will demonstrate more intense

verbal aggression than subjects who view television

in which no violence is shown.

H2: Subjects who view violence in which consequences to

the victim are shown will demonstrate less intense

verbal aggression than subjects who view television

in which no violence is shown.

Neither of these hypotheses were confirmed for any of the dependent

indices or the manipulation check (willingness to use physical aggression).

Main-effect F-ratios testing H1 and H2 are presented in Tables 10 and 11

respectively for the physical and verbal dependent indices, and in Tables

15 and 16 for the other indices.

Socioeconomic Status Differences

It was hypothesized that:

H3: Subjects from families of lower socioeconomic status

will demonstrate more intense verbal aggression than

subjects from families of middle socioeconomic status.

This hypothesis was tested in two ways. First, the overall 2X3X2X2

analysis of variance done for the verbal aggression situation index and

the willingness to use physical aggression index yields F-ratios for

SES effects (Tables 10 and 11, respectively). Socioeconomic status

produced significant differences in the predicted direction on both

indices (p= .004 for verbal aggression, and p= .005 fer physical aggres-

sion). Cell means for these indices collapsed on physical-verbal and

51

TABLE 15

ANALYSES OF VARIANCES

Violence Without Consequences-NonViolence (TV) X Socioeconomic Status (SES)

Word Association Index

Source of Variance SS df MS F P

TV 0.66 l 0.66 0.12 ns

SES 0.09 1 0.09 0.02 ns

TVXSES 3.34 l 3.34 0.62 ns

ERROR m 107 5.43

TOTAL 585.48 110

Mean-Kind Word RatjggAIndex

Source of Variance SS df MS F P

TV 10.02 1 10.02 0.81 ns

SES 0.14 l 0.14 0.01 ns

TVXSES 0.60 1 0.60 0.05 ns

ERROR 1324.65 191_ 12.38

TOTAL 1336.67 110

Excited-Calm Word RatjggIndex

Source of Variance SS df MS F P

TV 2.99 1 2.99 0.14 ns

SES 4.96 l 4.96 0.23 ns

TVXSES 45.83 1 45.83 2.10 ns

ERROR M 10_7 21.87

TOTAL 2399.75 110

Table 15 (cont'd)

52

Good-Bad Word Ratjpg Index

Source of Variance SS df MS F P

TV 0.40 1 0.40 0.01 ns

SES 58.06 1 58.06 2.03 ns

TVXSES 36.47 1 36.47 1.28 ns

ERROR m _1_0_7_ 28.55

TOTAL 3156.40 110

TABLE 16

ANALYSES OF VARIANCE

Violence with Consequences-NonViolence (TV) X Socioeconomic Status (SES)

Word Association Index

Source of Variance SS df MS F P

TV 0.94 1 0.94 0.15 ns

SES 11.82 1 11.82 1.83 ns

TVXSES 3.55 l 3.55 0.55 ns

ERROR 211429_ 1151 6.47

TOTAL 727.83 113

Mean-Kind Word Rating Index

Source of Variance SS df MS F P

TV 31.65 1 31.65 2.67 ns

SES 0.47 l 0.47 0.04 ns

TVXSES 0.08 l 0.08 0.01 ns

ERROR 1394;2§_ LEE; 11.86

TOTAL 1336.07 113

53

Table 16 (cont'd)

Excited-Calm Word Rating Index

Source of Variance SS df MS F P

TV 0.08 l 0.08 0.00 ns

SES 61.27 1 61.27 3.22 0.07

TVXSES 10.15 1 10.15 0.53 ns

ERROR 2996;2§_ 119_ 19.06

TOTAL 2171.16 113

Good-Bad Word Rating Index

Source of Variance SS df MS F P

TV 13.42 1 13.42 0.62 ns

SES 0.00 1 ' 0.00 0.00 ns

TVXSES 2.67 1 2.67 0.12 ns

ERROR 2§gggzz_ 119_ 21.82

TOTAL 2415.02 113

open-closed orders are presented in Table 17 for each relevant treatment

comparison. Secondly, the two by two analyses of variance tested SES

effects for the remaining four indices. None of these other indices,

word association and word ratings, seemed to tap socioeconomic dif-

ferences for either treatment comparison. ‘The excited-calm word-

rating index produced a marginally significant difference (p= .07)

fer the violence with consequences - nonviolence comparison (Table

16), indicating that middle SES subjects rated the words as more

excited than the lower SES subjects. However, since this measure

54

TABLE 17

CELL MEANS AND FREQUENCIES FOR VERBAL AGGRESSION SITUATION

INDEX, WILLINGNESS TO USE PHYSICAL AGGRESSION INDEX, AND

EXCITED-CALM WORD RATING INDEX

1

Verbal Agggession Situation Index

Violence Violence

Non Without Non Without

Violence Conseqpences Violence Conseqpences

Lower SES 14.58 17.64 Lower SES 14.58 14.23

(n=26) (n=22) (n=26) (n=26)

Middle SES 13.04 12.67 Middle SES 13.04 12.97

(n=27) (n=36) (n=27) (n=35)

Willingness to Use Physical Aggression1

Violence 1 Violence

Non Without Non Without

Violence Consequences Violence Conseqpences

Lower SES 13.42 14.45 Lower SES 13.42 11.62

(n=26) (n=22) (n=26) (n=26)

Middle SES 11.04 11.36 Middle SES 11.04 12.37

(n=27) (n=36) (n=27) (n=35)

Excited-Calm Word RatingLIndexz

Violence

Non With

Violence Consequences

Lower SES 18.35 17.69

(n=26) (n=26)

Middle SES 19.22 19.77

(n=27) (n=35)

2Higher means indicate more intense aggression.

Higher means indicate higher excited ratings.

55

was used for exploratory purposes, it neither confirms nor disconfirms

the hypothesis. Cell means for this index are presented in Table 17

for this comparison.

Thus, for the verbal aggression situation index and the willing—

ness to use physical aggression index, subjects from families of

lower socioeconomic status tend to be more verbally aggressive and

tend to be more willing to use physical aggression than subjects

from families of middle socioeconomic status, as measured by these

two indices.

Interaction Effects

It was hypothesized that:

H : There will be an interaction between television exposure

4 and socioeconomic status, such that subjects who view

violence in which consequences to the victim are not

shown will demonstrate more intense verbal aggression

than subjects who view television in which no violence

is shown, and this effect will be greater for subjects

from families of middle socioeconomic status than sub-

jects from families of lower socioeconomic status.

H5: There will be an interaction between television exposure

and socioeconomic status, such that subjects who view

violence in which consequences to the victim are shown

will demonstrate less intense verbal aggression than

subjects who view television in which no violence is

shown, and this effect will be greater for subjects

from families of middle socioeconomic status than

subjects from families of lower socioeconomic status.

H4 and H5 were tested by the television treatment by socioeconomic

status interaction F-ratios presented in Tables 10, 11, 15, and 16

respectively. Neither hypothesis was supported for any dependent

index or the manipulation check (willingness to use physical aggression).

Thus, Ff.”¢Vi.§_ien_-1m9tmen.ts.slid notintereet 91399951995902'1“

status to produce the expected differences on any dependent measure.

“Me—a: ‘4 ' -- W -'i'...:’..\f" 1N ’

56

In summary, then, order effects were found for order of physical-

verbal items, and order of open- and closed-ended verbal aggression

situation items. The nonviolent television treatment condition was

shown to.provide base-line data, and was therefore used as the control

group in this study. Neither of the television treatment main effect

hypotheses, nor the television treatment-socioeconomic status inter-

action hypotheses were supported. Differences were found in intensity

of both verbal aggression and willingness to use physical aggression

between adolescent boys from families of lower and middle socioeconomic

status.

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

This research examined the effects of television violence on

the verbally aggressive behavior of adolescent boys from families

of varying socioeconomic status (SES). Three television treatments

were compared: violence with consequences to the victim, violence

without consequences to the victim, and nonviolence. Two levels of

SES were compared: lower and middle. Five indices of verbal aggression

were developed and used as dependent measures, along with one index of

physical aggression, to determine the effect of viewing violence with

and without consequences on verbally and physically aggressive behavior,

and in an attempt to determine the relationship between verbal and

physical aggression. Subjects were 234 seventh, eighth, and ninth

grade boys from three schools in middle and lower SES neighborhoods.

Television Treatment Differences

In terms of expected television treatment differences, the

following hypotheses failed to receive support:

H1: Subjects who view violence in which consequences to the

victim are not shown will demonstrate more intense verbal‘

aggression than subjects who view television in which no

violence is shown.

H : Subjects who view violence in which consequences to the

victim are shown will demonstrate less intense verbal

aggression than subjects who view television in which

no violence is shown.

57

58

The lack of support for these hypotheses is of major importance.

The comparison of the effects of these treatments formed the primary

focus of this study. As such, main treatment differences shed little

light on the notion of aggression inhibition, either towards verbal

or physical aggression. Both of these hypotheses stemmed from research

evidence which indicated that television violence without consequences

has a stimulative effect; i.e., it lowers the viewer's inhibitions

towards physical aggression, whereas television violence with con-

sequences should raise the viewer's inhibitions towards physical

aggression as suggested by past research. The stronger hypothesis

is the former, since more research has been conducted which supports

the stimulative effect of viewing television violence. The fact that

it was not supported here is crucial, since the predicted increase in

intensity of verbal aggression theoretically is based on a lowering

of the subject's inhibitions towards physical aggression. Without

this decrease in inhibitions, little can be shown about verbally

aggressive behavior, except that intensity of verbal aggression did

not demonstrate an increase either, and as such the theory has not

been disproved. Likewise, the latter hypothesis also receive no

support. Physically aggressive behavior did not show a significant

decrease as a result of exposure to consequences of violence to the

victim. Again, however, verbal aggression did not show a decrease

in intensity either.

Several possible conclusions could be drawn from the lack of

support for these two hypotheses: 1) Exposure to television has no

effect on aggressive behavior, 2) Exposure to television violence

does have effects on aggressive behavior, but the manipulations used

59

in this study were insufficient to produce the intended results, 3)

The manipulations worked as predicted, but the dependent measures

used were insensitive to changes in aggressive behaviors, or 4) The

sample drawn fer the study was biased.

The first and fourth conclusions seem unlikely. There is enough

experimental evidence demonstrating stimulating effects of television

violence under conditions similar to those used in this study that the

first conclusion is unwarranted. Also, the schools from which the

samples were drawn are representative of Michigan area schools. The

boys used were normal, according to the teachers. Where boys were

reported by the teachers as non-normal, e.g., overly-aggressive, they

were dropped from the study. As such, the fourth conclusion also

seems unwarranted.

The second and third conclusions, however, are possible. Through

violence is clearly evident in the television scenes, and an attempt

was made to remove consequences from the violence without consequences

version, there may still have been an overtone in this version reducing

the stimulating effect of the violence. For example, there is no music

in this version which separates it from the "Mannix" type of fight scene,

and makes it quite realistic. Also the sheriff, who is Marlon Brando -

obviously a "good guy" - is knocked unconscious by three men. There

is a tenor of seriousness to this, plus the fact that it may have

been seen by the subjects as an unjustified beating, which could have

resulted in an inhibitive rather than a stimulating effect. A com-

parison was made of the violence without and with consequences which

produced no differences between these two treatments on any index.

This adds some support to the notion that the no consequences version

60

in fact was perceived to have consequences. The problem here could

have been alleviated by using a different scene, but this would have

introduced a number of control problems associated with different

contexts, characters, and a general lack of comparison between scenes.

At any rate, the subjects did not react differently to the violence

with and violence without consequences scenes.

The third conclusion is also possible - the indices used may have

been insensitive to differences produced by the television treatments.

The word associations and word ratings seem to have generally washed

out. They showed no SES differences which were predicted both in terms

of past research and common sense. They did not intercorrelate very

well, nor correlate with other indices. Possibly the taske were too

difficult for the subjects, especially_the lower_SES boys. The--_n- ——-~,~_H.W- ..

word ratings seems very susceptible to misunderstanding by the sub-

jects. Rating a word on an excited-calm dimension is a highly abstract

type of task requiring cognitive abilities that may not have developed

in the adolescents. The physical aggression measures were successfully

used by Dominick (1971), but were used to measure gross differences

between children of varying SES. These items tapped these gross

differences in this study also, but may have been unable to detect

the more sensitive differences induced by the manipulations attempted

here. Possibly the "shocking" technique used by other researchers

might have been more sensitive to changes in physical aggression. As

argued earlier, the paper and pencil nature of these measures may have

contaminated them by tapping some of the verbally aggressive behavior

of the subjects. This seems a possibility given the strong intercorre-

lation between the physical measures and the verbal aggression situation

items.

61

The verbal aggression situation items were developed for this

study. As such, no evidence exists as to the validity or reliability

of the specific measures used in this study. One problem of the items

was the nature of the language used. It was necessary to use genera-

lly accepted words fer two reasons: 1) the same items were to be used

by both lower and middle SES adolescents, and 2) schools would not allow

taboo or swear wOrds in a questionnaire to be distributed in their class-

rooms. The lack of specific wording designed with the type of slang

and dialect of each specific grouping of subjects in mind possibly

reduced the validity of the items for any particular grouping which

may have reduced subject identification with the items and alternative

responses, making the items and responses appear artificial. As such,

the verbal aggression measures may have been insensitive to differences

in verbally aggressive intensity induced by the television treatments.

Certain experimental procedures may have also lowered treatment

effects. Group viewing during school hours in a classroom, plus the

novelty of participating in research may have been conditions that

were not conducive to personal impact of the television stimuli.

In summary, then, there are a number of confounding factors that

may have affected results of the treatment comparisons. Nonetheless,

little support has been provided here for the theoretic contention

that exposure to violence with consequences reduces inhibitions

towards physical or verbal aggression. This conclusion would be

more significant, however, if the violence without consequences

treatment had produced a clear stimulative effect. Unfortunately,

because inhibitions were not affected, little can also be said

62

concerning the relationship between physical and verbal aggression,

except that television treatment comparisons did not demonstrate any

differences between verbal and physical aggression. SES differences,

however, provide some more evidence concerning treatment effects.

Socioeconomic Status (SES) Differences

It was hypothesized that:

H3: Subjects from families of lower socioeconomic status

will demonstrate more Tntense verbal aggression than

subjects from families of middle socioeconomic status.

This hypothesis was in general supported, as would be expected.

The word association index and word rating indices did not detect any

differences as previously mentioned, with the exception of the excited-

calm index in the violence with consequences - nonviolence comparison.

However, given the exploratory nature of the word rating indices, it

neither supports nor disconfirms the hypothesis. Also, given the

inconsistency of the word ratings in general, and the difficulty of

the task for the subjects, this finding should be accepted with

reservations.

The verbal aggression situation index and the willingness to

use physical aggression index both detected predicted differences.

The pattern of significance is interesting, especially as it relates

to predicted treatment differences. The overall 2X3X2X2 analysis of

variance produced significant main effect SES differences in the pre-

dicted direction fOr both indices. Likewise, a further 2X2 violence

collapsed on physical-verbal and open-closed orders without consequences -

nonviolence analysis of variance produced the same significant differences.

63

However, a violence with consequences - nonviolence 2X2 comparison did

not produce significant difference on either index. Results of these

analyses of variance are presented in appendix 1. The pattern of means

within these cells is important (See Table 17). Apparently, the over-

all significance was produced by the difference in means in the violence

without consequences middle and lower SES cells (12.67 and 17.64 re—

spectively fer verbal aggression, and 11.36 and 14.45 respectively for

physical aggression). Examining the violence with consequences cells,

the lower SES verbal and physical aggression cell means have decreased

to 14.23 and 11.62 respectively. Although these decreases were neither

large enough to produce significant treatment differences in a comparison

of violence with and without consequences, nor significant differences

when each is compared to nonviolence, they were large enough to reduce

main effect SES differences to non-significance in the violence with

consequences - nonviolence comparison. This occurred for both the

physical and verbal indices. This would indicate that violence with

consequences, at least for the lower SES subjects, is possibly in-

hibiting, and similarly so for both verbal and physical aggression.

This is congruent with theoretic expectations.

In summary, then, the results of this study generally demon-

strate that boys from families of lower SES are more intensely

verbally aggressive than boys from families of middle SES, as

measured by the situation index used in this study. Also, some

possible support was found for the contention that violence with

consequences raises inhibitions towards both physical and verbal

aggression for lower SES subjects.

64

Television Treatment - Socioeconomic Status (SES) Interactions

It was hypothesized that:

H4: There will be an interaction between television

exposure and socioeconomic status, such that

subjects who view violence in which consequences

to the victim are not shown will demonstrate more

intense verbal aggression than subjects who view

television in which no violence is shown, and this

effect will be greater for subjects from families

of middle socioeconomic status than subjects from

families of lower socioeconomic status.

H5: There will be an interaction between television

exposure and socioeconomic status, such that sub-

jects who view violence in which consequences to

the victim are shown will demonstrate less intense

verbal aggression than subjects who view television

in which no violence is shown, and this effect will

be greater for subjects from families of middle

socioeconomic status than subjects from families

of lower socioeconomic status.

Both these hypotheses stem from research that indicates lower SES

subjects are more exposed to and involved in violence and consequences

of violence than middle SES subjects. As such, it was predicted that

lower SES subjects would then be less affected by both the violence

with and without consequences than would the middle SES subjects.

Neither hypothesis was supported, however. Two significant inter-

actions were found, but neither was in the predicted direction. The

violence with consequences produced a significant interaction for the

willingness to use physical aggression index. The means for these cells

indicate that exposure to violence with consequences appeared to reduce

physical aggression as compared to the nonviolent treatment for the lower

SES subjects, as predicted. However, it seemed to increased willingness

to use physical aggression for the middle SES subjects, which produced

the interaction, and not in the predicted direction. Likewise a comparison

65

of violence with and without consequences described earlier in this

chapter produced a similar interaction. This would indicate that

consequences stimulated the physically aggressive behavior of the

middle SES subjects. The verbal aggression situation means show a

similar pattern in the violence with and without consequences compar-

ison, though not significant. For the violence with consequences -

nonviolence comparison, the middle SES subjects show a slight non-

significant decrease in intensity of verbal aggression (13.04 to

12.97 fer nonviolence and violence with consequences respectively,

which is predicted, but much less so than the lower SES subjects'

decrease (14.58 to 14.23, non-significant) which is not predicted.

Why the middle SES boys demonstrated an increase in physical

aggression after viewing consequences as compared to after viewing

violence without consequences is difficult to explain. Possibly

there is a perception difference concerning consequences of violence

for the middle and lower SES boys. Perhaps the middle SES subjects

did not see the consequences as real as did the lower SES subjects.

This coupled with the increased violence in the consequences version

may have produced stimulating effects for the middle SES subjects,

and more so than in the no consequences version.

In summary, the predicted interactions between television

treatments and socioeconomic status were not supported. However,

the pattern of means for the lower SES boys indicates again that the

violence with consequences reduced physical aggression, thus possibly

raising inhibitions, and the same tendency is present for the verbally

aggressive behavior of the lower SES boys, though not significant. This

66

is possible support for the theoretic contention that verbal and

physical aggression have similar inhibitions, at least for lower SES

boys. However, the opposite effect was shown for the middle SES sub-

jects for physical aggression, with inconsistent results shown for

their verbally aggressive behavior. This does not support the

theoretic contention. Nor does it support the hypothesis that lower

SES boys would be less affected by exposure to consequences than middle

SES boys.

*‘k'k

To summarize, overall comparisons of exposure to television violence

with and without consequences to each other and to nonviolent television

exposure failed to show any differences in terms of either physical or

verbal aggression of adolescent boys. Boys from families of lower

socioeconomic status tended to demonstrate more intense verbal aggres-

sion than boys fromfamilies of middle socioeconomic status. Examining

television treatment effects on only boys from families of lower socio-

economic status, and socioeconomic differences within the television

treatments, there is evidence that indicates violence with consequences

raises inhibitions of the lower SES boys towards verbal and physical

aggression similarily. This provides some support to the theoretic

contention that similar inhibitions control both verbal and physical

aggression. It was not demonstrated that inhibitions of boys from

families of lower socioeconomic status are less affected by violence

with and without consequences than boys from families of middle socio-

economic status. Finally, of five indices developed to measure verbal

67

aggression, only one seemed to reliably tap this dimension - the verbal

aggression situation index, which was composed of two closed-ended and

one open-ended situation items.

Research Extensions

This research has raised questions which need further research

efforts. First, a more valid measure of verbal aggression needs to

be developed and tested, which is separate from measures of physical

aggression. In conjunction with this, present paper and pencil indices

of physical aggression should be revalidated in an attempt to determine

the extent to which they measure verbal aggression. If in fact they

do measure verbal aggression, new indices of physical aggression need

to be developed which are valid and can be used along with measures

of verbal aggression to determine differential effects of various

types of stimuli. I

Exactly what constitutes consequences of aggression, and how

such consequences are perceived by adolescents needs to be determined.

Consequences presented to subjects in the present study may not have

been perceived as negative consequences to the same extent or in the

same way by subjects from varied SES backgrounds.

Certain contextual elements of violent scenes need to be studied

in terms of their effects on aggressive behavior. For example, the

effects of justification in relationship to negative consequences

of violence may produce differential effects on verbally aggressive

and physically aggressive behavior. If the beating were delivered

to a "bad guy" in this study instead of a "good guy", different

effects might have resulted. What other types of contextual variables

are important needs to be determined.

68

The relationship of physical and verbal aggression needs to be

further examined. This study provided minimal support fer the hypothesis

that they have similar inhibitions. This study needs to be replicated

with better measures and television stimuli which show consequences

more in line with the perceptions of the subjects.

The effects of exposure to verbally aggressive television stimuli

on both verbal and physical aggression of the viewer need to be deter-

mined. If in fact it is found from studies on the relationship between

verbal and physical aggression that they have similar inhibitions,

exposure to verbal aggression may increase the intensity of the viewer's

physical aggression.

The effects of various experimental conditions on results of

media studies need to be examined. Group viewing, viewing under

highly controlled conditions, lack of alternatives in terms of what

is viewed or post-viewing behaviors, viewing in schools, presence

of researchers during viewing, etc., are all conditions that could

confound treatment results, rendering them ineffective or invalid.

Finally, if future research demonstrates that viewing televised

verbal and physical aggression does affect intensity of physical and

verbal behaviors of the viewer, long term effects of such viewing

must be determined. It may be that long term effects desensitize

viewers to verbal and physical aggression, widening norms governing

both types of behaviors in society as a whole.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allinsmith, Beverly 8., "Parental Discipline and Children's Aggression

in Two Social Classes." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University

of Michigan, 1954.

Aronfreed, J., Conduct and Conscience: The Socialization gf_Internalized

Control Over BehaVior, New 707k: Academic Press, 1968.

Ball, Sandra S. J., "Discussions and Conclusions," in R. K. Baker and S.

J. Ball (eds.), Mass Media and Violence, a staff report to the National

Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Government Print-

ing Office, November, 1969.

Bandura, A., "Influence of Models' Reinforcement Contingencies on the

Acquisition of Initative Responses," Journal gf_Personality and

Social Psychology, 1965, 1, pp. 589-595. (a).

Bandura, A., "Vicarious Processes: A CaSe of No-Trial Learning," in

L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.

2, New York: Academic Press,_T965. (5).

Bandura, A., and others, "Imitation of Film-Mediated Aggressive Models,"

Journal gf_Abnormal Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 3-11.

Beech, H. R., and M. Graham, "Note on the Use of Sentence Completion

in Assessing Overt Aggression in Normal School Children," Psychology

Reports, 1967, 20, 9-10.

Berkowitz, L., A ression: A_Social Psychological Analysis, New York:

McGraw Hill, 1862.

Brammel, 0., and others, "An Observer's Reactions to the Suffering of

his Enemy," Journal gf_Personalityand Social Psychology, 1968,

8. 384-392.

Buss, A. H., "Stimulus Generalization and Aggressive Verbal Stimuli,"

Journal g: Experimental Psychology, 1961, 61, 469-473.

Buss, A. H., "Stimulus Generalization with Aggressive Verbal Stimuli:

A New Paradigm," Journal of Psychology, 1962, 53, 417-424.

Buss, A. H., and A. Durkee, "An Inventory fOr Assessing Different Kinds

of Hostility," Journal 9: CounselingPsychology, 1957, 21, 343-349.

Buss, A. H., and A. Durkee, "Conditioning of Hostile Verbalizations in

a Situation Resembling a Clinical Interview," Journal gf_Consulting

Psychology, 1958, 22, 415-418.

69

70

Bibliography (cont'd.)

"84 Killings Shown in 85 1/2 TV Hours on the Three Networks," New York

Times, July 26, 1968, pg. 35.

De Charms, R., and E. J. Wilkens, "Some Effects of Verbal Expressions

of Hostility," Journal of Abnormal Social Psyehology, 1963,66,

462-470.

Dominick, J. R., and B. S. Greenberg, "Attitudes Towards Violence:

The Interaction of TV Exposure, Family Attitudes, and Social Class,"

Michigan State University, (mimeo), November, 1970.

Geen, R. G. , and L. Berkowitz, "Some Conditions Facilitating the Occurrence

of Aggression after the Observation of Violence,“ Journal of Personality,

1967, 35, 666-676.

Geen, J. H.., and A. H. Buss, "Supplimentary Report: Generalization of a

Nonverbal Response to Aggressive Verbal Stimuli," Journal of Experi-

mental Psychology, 1962, 63, 413-414.

Gerbner, George, "Violence in Television Drama: A Study of Trends and

Symbolic Functions," Annenberg School of Communications, University

of Pennsylvania, December, 1970.

Goranson, R. E., "A Review of Recent Literature on Psychological Effects

of Media Portrayals of Violence," in R. K. Baker and S. J. Ball (eds. ),

Mass Media and Violence, a staff report to the National Commission

on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Government Printing Office,

November, 1969.

Gottschalk, L. A. , and others, "Three Hostility Scales Applicable to

Verbal Samples," A. M. A. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1963,

9, 254-279.

Greenberg, B., and Dominick, J., Television Behavior Amon Disadvantaged

Children, CUP Research Report, Department of Commun1cation,Mich1gan

State University, 1969.

Greenberg, B. S.., and T. F. Gordon, Social Class and Racial Differences

in Children' s Perceptions of Television Violence, Mich19an Stafé

University, (mimeOT, February, 1971.

Haney, R. D., "The Role of Encoding and Decoding Aggressive Messages on

Subsequent Hostility." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan

State University, 1971.

Kaufimann, H., A ression and Altruism, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and

Winston, l9

Larsen, 0.., and others, "Achieving Goals Through Violence on Television,"

in 0. L. Larsen (ed. ), Violence in the Mass Media, New York: Harper

and Row, 1968, 97-111.

71

Bibliography (cont'd.)

Loew, C. A., "Acquisition of Hostile Attitude and its Relationship to

Aggressive Behavior," Journal 9f_Personality and Social Psycholggy,

1967, 5. 335-341.

Lovaas, I. 0., "Interaction Between Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior,"

Child Development, 1961, 32, 329-336.

McClelland, D. C., and F. S. Apicella, "A Functional Classification

of Verbal Reactions to Experimentally Induced Failure," Journal

gf_Abnormal Social Psychology, 1945, 40, 376-390.

Mosher, D. L., "Verbal Aggressive Behavior in Delinquent Boys,"

Journal gf_Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 73, 454-460.

Mosher, D. L., and L. M. Proenza, "Intensity of Attack, Displacement,

and Verbal Aggression," Psychonomic Science, 1968, 12, 359-360.

North, C. C., and P. K. Hatt, "Jobs and Occupations: A Popular

Evaluation," Opinion News, September 1, 1947.

Reif, Thomas F., "The Perception of Violence as a Function of Historical

and Current Behavior." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Psychology

Department, Michigan State University,-l967.

Schramm, H., and others, Television jg_thg_Lives Qf_0ur Children,

Stanford University Press, 1961.

Sears, R. R., and others, Patterns 9j_Chi1d Rearigg, New York: Row,

Peterson, 1957.

Simpson, H. M., and K. C. Craig, “Word Association to Homonymic and

Neutral Stimuli as a Function of Aggressiveness," _sychology

Reports, 1967, 20, 351-354.

Singer, J. L., "The Influence of Violence Portrayed in Television or

Motion Pictures Upon Overt Aggressive Behavior," in J. L. Singer

(ed.), The Control gf_Aggression and Violence, New York: Academic

Press, 1971, 19-60

Stempel, G., Unpublished study cited in B. Greenberg, "The Content and

and Context of Violence in the Mass Media," in Mass Media and Violence,

5. J. Ball and R. K. Baker (eds.), A staff report to the National

Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, U. S. Government

Printing Office, November, 1969, 423-452.

Talbott, Albert 0., "Missing Data and Index Construction," Research

Services Publication, Department of Communication, Michigan State

University, 1967.

72

Bibliography (cont'd.)

Troldahl, V. C., "Occupational Prestige Scale,“ Department of Communication,

Michigan State University, (mimeo), 1967.

U. S. Government, Re ort 91 the National Advisory Comnission 91 Civil

Disorders, New Yor : Bantam, 1965.

Weiss, Halter, "Effects of the Mass Media of Communication," in G.

Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds.), Ihs_Handbook gf_Socia1 Psychology,

Vol. 5, Addison-Westley, 1969, 77-195.

Weiss, H., and B. J. Fine, "The Effect of Induced Aggressiveness on

Opinion Change," Journal 9f_Abnorma1 Social-Psychology, 1956, 52

109-114.

Zedek, Meira E., "The Conditioning of Verbal Behavior with Negative

Cultural Connotations," Journal gj_Personality, 1959, 27, 477-486.

Zuckerman, M., "The Effect of FruStration on the Perception of Neutral

and Aggressive Hords," Journal 9f_Personality, 1955, 23, 407-422.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

ANALYSES 0F VARIANCES

APPENDIX I

ANALYSES 0F VARIANCES

Violence Without Consequences-Nonviolence (TV) X Socioeconomic Status (SES)

Verbal Aggression Situation Index

Source of Variance SS df MS F P

TV 48.62 1 48.62 1.25 ns

SES 284.91 1 284.91 7.30 0.008

TVXSES 79.09 ‘1 79.09 2.03 ns

ERROR m _1_g7_ 39.05

TOTAL 4563.03 110

Willinggsss to Use Physical Aggression Index

Source of Variance SS df MS F P

TV 12.35 1 12.35 1.02 ns

SES 201.87 1 207.87 16.60 0.0005

TVXSES 3.36 1 3.36 0.28 ns

ERROR 130L121 1_Q_7_ 12.16

TOTAL 1510.11 110

Verbal Aggression Situation Index

Source of Variance SS df MS F P

TV 1.19 1 1.19 0.04 ns

SES 54.97 1 54.97 1.62 ns

TVXSES 0.55 1 0.55 0.02 ns

ERROR m 11_O 33.90

TOTAL 3786.25 113

73

74

APPENDIX I

ANALYSES 0F VARIANCE

Willingness to Use Physical Aggression

Source of Variance SS df MS F P

TV 1.57 l 1.57 0.10 ns

SES 18.64 1 18.64 1.24 ns

TVXSES 69.27 1 69.27 4.61 0.03

ERROR 1§§l;§§_ 119_ 15.01

TOTAL 1736.28 113

APPENDIX II

INSTRUMENT

-75-

Here are some things other students have said. Think about how much you age

or dies e with each of these things. Then put an "X" on the line next to what

you tag.

"There is no good reason for ever hitting anyone."

What do you think?

(Choose one) I agree very much

I agree a little

I'm not sure

I disagree a little

I disagree very such

"People who keep on bothering me are asking for a punch in the nose."

What do you think?

(Choose one) I agree very much

I agree a little

I'm not sure

I disagree a little

I disagree very much

"Anybody who says bad things about me is looking for a fight."

What do you think?

(Choose one) I agree very such

I agree a little

I'm not sure

I disagree a little

I disagree very much

"I think fighting is a waste of time."

What do you think?

(Choose one) I agree very much

I agree a little

I'm not sure

I disagree a little

I disagree very much

-75-

HERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED TO OTHER STUDENTS. WE WOULD LIKE TO

KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD SAY IF THESE THINGS HAPPENED TO :99... PLEASE TELL US WHAT

YOU WOULD HONESTLY SAY:

Imagine that you have been standing in the lunch line at the cafeteria for

some time and a guy you don't like cuts into the line in front of you. What

would 19}; s_al to him?

(PRINT YOUR ANSWER BELOW)

Imagine that you have a friend who is not very tall. If another student

called your friend a dirty name and made fun of his size, what would 192 531

to this other student?

(PRINT YOUR ANSWER BELOW)

-77-

HERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED TO OTHER STUDENTS. BELOW EACH THING

IS A LIST OF WHAT OTHER STUDENTS HAVE SAID IN THOSE SITUATIONS. CHOOSE THE

ONE STATEMENT THAT IS HOST LIKE WHAT YOU WOULD fl IF THAT THING HAPPENED TO :92.

Imagine that a student you know tells your teacher that you cheated on a test.

This student knows you did 933 cheat, so he lied. What would 121; 3.?1 to this

student? Choose the on_e statement that is most like what 132 would E91. and put

an "X" on the line next to it.

I would say nothing.

I would say something, but not about what happened .

I would tell him that was not a good thing to do.

I would tell him he was a pretty dmnb person for doing that.

I would tell him he was a stupid idiot for doing that.

I would tell him I hate stupid people who do things like that.

I would tell him I hate h_i_m_ for doing a stupid thing like that

and make sure he knew I was mad.

I would call him the worst names I could think of and make sure

he knew I was really mad.

I would call him the worst names I could think of and tell him

I would hit him if he ever did that again.

-73-

Inwuyine that a student you know takes your new pen and would not give it back

when you asked for it. What would y_o_u_ say to this student? Choose the. 9113

statement that is most like what 29.! would 21 and put an "X" on the line next

to it. '

Iinmddtuwrnoflung.

I would say something, but not about what happened.

I would tell him that was not a good thing to do.

I would tell him he was a pretty dumb person for doing that.

I would tell him he was a stupid idiot for doing that.

I would tell him I hate stupid peOple who do things like that.

I would tell him I hate him for doing a stupid thing like that

andlmnunsunelmzkmmvliwaslan

I would call him the worst names I could think of and make sure

helamm Iiuuzreaxurumd.

I would call him the worst names I could think of and tell him

I would hit him if he ever did that again.

-79-

STOP!

Do NOT GO TO TEXT SECTIOI {TITIL HE ATE

I‘LL fl-NJY

-30-

On each of the following pages there is a word. Go through the pages as fast

as you can and PRINT the first word you think of when you see the word.

iPOR.EXAHPLE:

If the word is 9&2, and the first word you think of when you see the

word is "DOG," then print "DOG” on the line under the word.

Like this:

CAT:

Po 61U

OR:

If the word is PAPER, and the first word you think of is "PEN," then

print "PEN" on the line under the word.

Like this:

TYPE;

P 8 Y1

REMEMBER: Print the first word you think of, no matter what it is, as soon

as you see the word. Go as fast as you can. Do not go back

to any words after you have completed them, or change any words

after you write them down. This is 223 a test so there are gg_right

or wrong answers.

-81-

KILLING:

-82..

ANGER:

-83-

DISLIKE:

-gu-

GOLD:

-85-

CRUEL:

-35-

SLEEP:

-37-

TTNFRIEFTDLY:

-88..

DI SAGREE:

-gg-

...

-90...

IAIN:

-91-

HATE :

-92-

-93-

S T O P 1

DO HOT 60 TO NEXT SECTID” "TTIL WE ARE

ALL READY

-gu-

On each of the following pages there is a word. Below the word there are three

<questions which ask how you feel or what you think about the word. From the

choices under each question, choose the ggg_which best describes how you feel

about the word and then place an "X" on the line beside it.

iFOR.EXAMPLE: If the word is BEAUTIFUL, the page will look like this:

BEAUTIFUL

How mean is this word?

Very mean

(Choose one) X Somewhat mean

A little mean

Unsure

A little kind

Somewhat kind

Very kind

How excited is this word?

Very excited T

(Choose one) ~Somewhat excited

A little excited

Unsure 1

X A little calm

Somewhat calm

Very calm

How good is this word?

Very good

Somewhat good

A little good

Unsure

A little bad

Somewhat bad

Very bad

(Choose one)

If you feel the word BEAUTIFUL is "somewhat mean" you would place an "X" on the:

line beside "Somewhat mean'i as shown above. If you feel it is "very kind”, you.

would place an "X" on the line beside "Very kind".

Likewise, you would decide how "excited” and "good" the word BEAUTIFUL is, and ;

place an "X" next to your choices. If you feel it is "A little calm" and "Very,

good", you would place an "X" by those choices as shown above.

REMEMBER: Answer eves! question, and choose only 323_answer for each

question. Work as fast as you can, putting down what you first

think of. After you have finished a question, do not go back to

it. This is 223.3 test, so there are gg_right or wrong answers.

-95-

GOLD

How mean is this word? Very mean

Somewhat mean

(Choose one) A little mean

Unsure

A little kind

Somewhat kind

Very kind

llll

How excited is this word? Very excited

Somewhat excited

(Choose one) A little excited

Unsure

A little calm

Somewhat calm

Very calm

How good is this word? Very good

Somewhat good

(Choose one) A little good

Unsure

A little bad

Somewhat bad

Very bad

-95-

DISUTE

How mean is this word? Very mean

Somewhat mean

(Choose one) A little mean

Unsure

A little kind

Somewhat kind

Very kind

How excited is this word? Very excited

. Somewhat excited

(Choose one) A little excited

Unaure

A little calm

Somewhat calm

Very calm

How good is this word? Very good

Somewhat good

(Choose one) A little good

Unsure

A little bad

Somewhat bad

Very bad

-g7-

PIER

How mean is this word? Very mean

Somewhat mean

(Choose one) A little mean

' Unsure

A little kind

Somewhat kind

Very kind

How excited is this word? Very excited

Somewhat excited

(Choose one) A little excited

Unsure

A little calm

Somewhat calm

Very calm

How gggg is this word? Very good

Somewhat good

(Choose one) A little good

Unsure

A little bad

Somewhat bad

Very bad

How mean is this word?

(Choose one)

How exicted is this word?

(Choose one)

How good is this word?

(Choose one)

-93-

BLUE

V

S

U

ery mean

omewhat mean

A little mean

nsure

A little kind

8

V

V

S

omewhat kind

ery kind

ery excited

omewhat excited

A little excited

U

A

S

V

V

S

A

U

A

llll

V

nsure

little calm

omewhat calm

ery calm

ery good

omewhat good

little good

nsure

little bad

Somewhat bad

ery bad

-gg-

KILLING

How mean is this word? Very mean

Somewhat mean

(Choose one)A little mean

Unsure

A little kind

Somewhat kind

Very kind

II

How excited is this word? Very excited

Somewhat excited

(Choose one) A little excited

Unsure

A little calm

Somewhat calm

Very calm

IIII

II

How good is this word? Very good

Somewhat good

(Choose one) A little good

Unsure

A little bad

Somewhat bad

Very bad

II

I

~100-

HATE

How mean is this word? Very mean

Somewhat mean

(Choose one) A little mean

Unsure

A little kind

Somewhat kind

Very kind

How excited is this word? Very excited

Somewhat excited

(Choose one) A little existed

Unsure

A little calm

Somewhat calm

Very calm

How good is this word? Very good

Somewhat good

(Choose one) A little good

Unsure

A little bad

Somewhat bad

Very badII

How mean is this word?

(Choose one)

How excited is this word?

(Choose one)

How good is this word?

(Choose one)

-101-

NARI

Very mean

Somewhat mean

A little mean

Unsure

A little kind

Somewhat kind

Very kind

Very excited

Somewhat excited

A little excited

Unsure

A little calm

Somewhat calm

Very calm

Very good

Somewhat good

A little good

Unsure

A little bad

Somewhat bad

Very bad

-lO2-

U’FRIEIDU

How mean is this word? Very mean

‘Somewhat mean

(Choose one) A little mean

Unsure

A little kind

Somewhat kind

IVery kind

How excited is this word? Very excited

Somewhat excited

(Choose one) A little excited

Unsure

A little calm

Somewhat calm

Very calm

How good is this word? Very good

Somewhat good

(Choose one) A little good

Unsure

A little bad

Somewhat bad

Very bad

How mean is this word?

(Choose one)

How excited is this word?

(Choose one)

How good is this word?

(Choose one)

-103-

DISAGI‘HE

Very mean

Somewhat mean

A little mean

Unsure

A little kind

Somewhat kind

Very kind

II

Very excited

Somewhat excited

A little excited

Unsure

A little calm

Somewhat calm

Very calmII

Very good

Somewhat good

A little good

Unsure

A little bad

Somewhat bad

Very bad

-1ou-

How mean is this word? Very mean

Somewhat mean

(Choose one) A little mean

Unsure

A little kind

Somewhat kind

Very kind

How excited is this word? Very excited

Somewhat excited

(Choose one) A little excited

Unsure

A little calm

Samflmtcam

Very calm

How good is this word? Very good

Somewhat good

A little good

Unsure

A little bad

Somewhat bad

Very bad

(Choose one)

-105-

How mean is this word? Very mean

Somewhat mean

(Choose one) A little mean

Unsure

A little kind

Somewhat kind

Very kind

How excited is this word? Very excited

Somewhat excited

(Choose one) A little excited

Unsure

A little calm

Somewhat calm

Very calm

How good is this word? Very good

Somewhat good

(Choose one) A little good

Unsure

A little bad

Somewhat bad

Very bad

How mean is this word?

(Choose one)

How excited is this word?

(Choose one)

How good is this word?

(Choose one)

-106-

Very mean

Somewhat mean

A little mean

Unsure

A little kind

Somewhat kind

Very kind

Very excited

Somewhat excited

A little excited

Unsure

A little calm

Somewhat calm

Very calm

Very good

‘ Somewhat good

A little good

Unsure

A little bad

Somewhat bad

Very bad

-lO7-

STOP!

IDIDTGJTDI‘EXT SECTIO‘I INTILIENE

ALLREADY

-108-

HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU:

1. What grade are you in?

6th

7th

8th

9thI2. Are you male or female?

male

T—female

3. What kind of jobs do your parents have? What sort of work do they do?

(For example: "Sales clerk," "Runs a gas station," "Drives a truck,"

"Works on a farm," "Housewife,” or "Waits on people in a clothing store.")

Mother:

Father:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH I!

wvw.

-.v.

‘1-

'1

A

swam”..-

9I-

7'

'1"

4

_o’:*‘#

'Inhesmmmmu

II

W..11s

W

may

’1

v

z

‘n

.d‘,

.c-

HINDU“

3.413.?.

3.aunts-r III-vilfin1.1a.

.1IN.11....7.84.3.4.-.unmvo.

”JV-3‘II.....1)d.VM.L.rs

.1-

is

-.

I.1‘

>11.-'p-Wsm